|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
NYT:
"Iran's top nuclear negotiator was heading back to Tehran on Sunday
to consult with his nation's leadership, as negotiators remained divided
over how to limit and monitor Tehran's nuclear program and even on how to
interpret the preliminary agreement they reached two months ago. With all
sides now acknowledging that the talks would need to continue beyond
Tuesday, once considered the absolute deadline for a final deal,
officials from several nations said some of the politically difficult
questions - from inspections to how fast Iran could expand its nuclear
infrastructure in the waning years of an accord - are still just as
vexing as they were when the 18-month negotiation odyssey began... For
Mr. Kerry's counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister,
the obstacles to achieving his No. 1 goal - getting the crippling
sanctions on Iran lifted - are a tricky mix of both substance and
perception. His sudden flight back to Iran - Mr. Kerry was informed about
the trip on Saturday - may reflect his own delicate balancing act: He
cannot appear to contradict the latest 'red lines' laid out by Iran's
supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And he must emerge from the talks
able to make a convincing case that his concessions do not add up to what
the ayatollah recently described as a 'totalitarian agreement' sought by
the Americans. 'There are red lines which we cannot cross and some very
difficult decisions,' said Philip Hammond, the British foreign secretary,
who joined the talks here on Sunday. 'There are a number of different
areas where we still have major differences of interpretation in
detailing what was agreed at Lausanne,' he added, referring to the Swiss
location of the last talks in April... The last days of talks are often
the hardest. Gary Samore, Mr. Obama's former adviser on weapons of mass
destruction and is the president of a group called United Against a
Nuclear Iran, offered some advice: 'Don't make any more concessions to
get a deal in early July. They need a deal more than we do.'" http://t.uani.com/1FKg5uX
Reuters:
"Iran is backtracking from an interim nuclear agreement with world
powers three months ago, Western officials suggested on Sunday, as U.S.
and Iranian officials said talks on a final accord would likely run past
a June 30 deadline... Highlighting how much work remains in the nuclear
negotiations, British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond said on arrival in
Vienna that major challenges remained, including on the parameters
already agreed in April in Lausanne, Switzerland. 'There are a number of
different areas where we still have major differences of interpretation
in detailing what was agreed in Lausanne,' Hammond told reporters. 'There
is going to have to be some give or take if we are to get this done in
the next few days,' he said. 'No deal is better than a bad deal.' Other
Western officials echoed Hammond's remarks, saying some of the
backtracking involved the mechanics of monitoring Iranian compliance with
proposed limits on nuclear activities. 'It feels like we haven't advanced
on the technical issues and even gone back on some,' a Western diplomat
said on condition of anonymity. Another Western official traced the
apparent backtracking to a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei last week, in which he ruled out freezing sensitive nuclear work
in the country for a long time." http://t.uani.com/1GVca2h
Politico:
"Days away from a potential nuclear deal with Iran, senior
Republican senators are plotting a strategy to undermine the multilateral
accord just as the Obama administration tries to sell it to a skeptical
Congress. For weeks, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Republicans on his
Foreign Relations Committee have gleaned fresh intelligence from
classified briefings with senior administration officials and policy
experts - information they intend to use against the White House when it
pitches the plan to lawmakers. Corker has told President Barack Obama
it's 'breathtaking' that his administration has allegedly backed off its
insistence on aggressive inspections of Iran's nuclear plants, a key
outstanding issue in the talks... If and when a deal is inked, GOP
leaders are weighing a legislative strategy that would force Congress to
vote on a motion of approval, a move that would be designed to show that
only a minority of lawmakers back the nuclear plan. That could embarrass
the president, even if he persuades 34 Senate Democrats to help him
sustain a veto and keep the accord alive. For Obama, the activity points
to a treacherous road ahead in Congress if his administration manages to
strike an accord in the coming days. Republicans are attacking the
potential agreement as dangerous to national security, and GOP
presidential candidates are vowing to abandon it if they win." http://t.uani.com/1InNFgy
Nuclear Program & Negotiations
AP:
"A senior U.S. official acknowledged Sunday that Iran nuclear talks
will go past their June 30 target date, as Iran's foreign minister
prepared to head home for consultations before returning to push for a breakthrough.
Iranian media said Mohammed Javad Zarif's trip was planned in advance.
Still, the fact that he was leaving the talks so close to what had been
the Tuesday deadline reflected both that the talks had a ways to go and
his need to get instructions on how to proceed on issues where the sides
remain apart - among them how much access Tehran should give to U.N.
experts monitoring his country's compliance to any deal... The dispute
over access surfaced again Sunday, with Iranian Gen. Masoud Jazayeri saying
that any inspection by foreigners of Iran's military centers is
prohibited. He said the attempt by the U.S. and its allies to 'obtain
Iran's military information for years ... by the pressure of sanctions'
will not succeed." http://t.uani.com/1NtAiuL
Bloomberg:
"The 'real political deadline' for a final nuclear deal between the
P5+1 countries and Iran is July 9, not the end of this month, according
to Colin Kahl, Vice President Joe Biden's national security adviser. On
June 22, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said, 'We are sticking
to the deadline. The deadline is June 30.' He also said, however, that
'short-term adjustments may be required' after the deadline to complete
an agreement. Kahl's comments are the first public acknowledgment that the
U.S. team is allowing itself more than a week of wiggle room to get the
deal done. Secretary of State John Kerry left Washington today to join
negotiations in Vienna. Kahl, who also serves as deputy assistant to
President Barack Obama for national security, told an audience at the
Truman National Security Project conference Friday that U.S. negotiators
are operating under the view that they have until July 9 to complete a
deal. He said that deadline took into account the 30-day review period
that legislation provides for if the deal is submitted to Congress before
July 9 and a 60-day review period if submitted after July 9. The
administration doesn't want to give the Congress 60 days to review the
deal and thereby further delay its implementation, Kahl said." http://t.uani.com/1eeBIgR
WSJ:
"Iran secretly passed to the White House beginning in late 2009 the
names of prisoners it wanted released from U.S. custody, part of a wish
list to test President Barack Obama's commitment to improving ties and a
move that set off years of clandestine dispatches that helped open the
door to nuclear negotiations. The secret messages, via an envoy sent by
the Sultan of Oman, also included a request to blacklist opposition
groups hostile to Iran and increase U.S. visas for Iranian students,
according to officials familiar with the matter. The U.S. eventually
acceded to some of the requests, these officials said, including help
with the release of four Iranians detained in the U.S. and U.K.: two
convicted arms smugglers, a retired senior diplomat and a prominent
scientist convicted of illegal exports to Iran. The exchanges through
2013 helped build the foundation for the first direct talks between the
two nations since the 1979 Islamic revolution, current and former U.S.
officials involved in the diplomacy said." http://t.uani.com/1HsxeAH
AFP:
"US President Barack Obama recently sent a private message to Iran's
leadership via Iraq's prime minister, an Iranian newspaper reported
Monday on the eve of a deadline for a nuclear deal. Hamshahri, Iran's
highest-circulation daily, citing a lawmaker, said 'one of the leaders of
a neighbouring country' took the message from Obama to officials in
Tehran. The subject discussed was the nuclear talks between Iran and
world powers led by the United States it said, without giving further
details on its content. The newspaper suggested that the message bearer
was Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who met Obama on June 8 on the
sidelines of a G7 summit in Germany. Abadi visited Tehran on June 17,
meeting Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as well as President
Hassan Rouhani." http://t.uani.com/1KkpHTv
Reuters:
"Laurent Fabius spoke to reporters upon arrival in the Austrian
capital after top U.S. and Iranian diplomats said hard work was still
needed for what could be their final negotiations to bridge significant
differences. 'What we want is a robust deal that recognizes Iran's right
to civil nuclear power, but guarantees that Iran gives up definitively
the nuclear weapon,' Fabius said. For this there were three
'indispensable' conditions, he said: A lasting limitation of Iran's
research and development capacity, rigorous inspections of sites,
including military if needed, and the automatic return of sanctions if
Iran violates its commitments. 'These three conditions respect Iran's
sovereignty. They have still not been accepted by everybody, yet they
form the key base of the triangle that forms the robust agreement that we
want,' he said." http://t.uani.com/1CEpuEh
AFP:
"Kerry told reporters that although he remained 'hopeful' there was
still 'a lot of hard work to do'. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad
Zarif agreed, saying negotiators 'need to work really hard in order to be
able to make progress and move forward'. But his deputy Abbas Araghchi
suggested parts of the Lausanne framework no longer applied because other
countries had changed their positions. 'In Lausanne we found solutions to
many things, but some issues remained unresolved,' he told an
Arabic-language Iranian television channel Al-Alam. 'And now some of the
solutions found in Lausanne no longer work, because after Lausanne
certain countries within the P5+1 made declarations... and we see a
change in their position which complicates the task."' http://t.uani.com/1GVehTS
AP:
"Nuclear negotiators for Iran, obligated to dispose tons of enriched
uranium under an approaching deal, are focusing on a U.S.-backed plan for
Iran to send the material to another country for sale as reactor fuel,
diplomats told The Associated Press on Saturday. While Iran says it does
not want nuclear arms, it has more than 8 tons that could be turned into
the fissile core of a dozen or more atomic bombs if the material was
further enriched to weapons-grade levels. The export-and-sell option has
been floated before, and the diplomats emphasized that the sides have not
agreed on that solution in the search for what to do with the
low-enriched uranium stockpile... Other options discussed would mean
changing the enriched uranium into a form that cannot be used for weapons
or shipping it abroad for storage, probably in Russia. One of the
diplomats said Russia was a key candidate in the idea being floated that
Moscow would convert the low-enriched material and Iran would get a large
share of the profits from any sale." http://t.uani.com/1KkmMKt
WashPost:
"Underscoring what could happen if the talks fail, a senior Iranian
official warned that Tehran could resume enriching uranium at a faster
pace after putting much of it on hold while the talks were underway. 'Do
not think that Iran needs a deal,' said Ali Larijani, speaker of the
Iranian parliament, according to a report Sunday on the Islamic Republic
of Iran Broadcast. 'We welcome an agreement, but I do not [want] you to
think that if you exert more pressure, Iran will tolerate it. Do not make
Iran withdraw from the talks, and do not make it follow its nuclear path
more speedily.'" http://t.uani.com/1NpZanw
The Hill:
"Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said on Sunday that he worries
Iran has more momentum than the U.S. heading into final talks over
Tehran's nuclear arms research. 'I would actually fear that the Iranians
have the upper hand right now,' Hayden told 'Fox News Sunday' host Chris
Wallace. 'I would hope this is not the final round of talks,' he added.
Hayden argued on Sunday that the proposed deal does not do enough for
preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. 'We get them out of the
penalty box for their nuclear activities,' Hayden said. 'Then they're
free and empowered to do all their other activities in the region,' he
added." http://t.uani.com/1U0GgYU
Congressional
Action
Roll Call:
"A Democratic senator who has led calls for stronger sanctions
against Iran is joining Republicans skeptical of the country's intentions
when it comes to the ongoing talks over nuclear capabilities. In a letter
to Secretary of State John Kerry, Sen. Robert Menendez said the United
States should step back from multinational nuclear negotiations with
Iran. 'I am writing to express my grave concern about recent demands by
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Iran's parliament
rejecting critical elements of an agreement for a possible nuclear deal,'
the New Jersey Democrat wrote. 'If Iran insists on these redlines in
negotiations, then I strongly urge you to suspend negotiations rather
than accept a bad deal with Iran.'" http://t.uani.com/1IGggt5
WSJ:
"President Barack Obama, who narrowly eked out congressional
approval of his trade agenda this week, again faces a skeptical Congress
as his administration attempts to reach a final agreement to curb Iran's
nuclear program. Lawmakers are expressing concerns over lingering
unresolved issues, such as how much access inspectors will have to Iran's
facilities, as negotiators approach a month's end deadline for a final
agreement... Both Democrats and Republicans said this week their support
for a deal would hinge on how negotiators resolve remaining sticking
points, particularly how international inspectors will be able to verify
Iran's compliance with any new requirements. 'There needs to be immediate
access anywhere so that if the Iranians cheat, we can detect it,' said
Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign
Affairs Committee. 'If that's not going to be the case-as we hear some
rumors-then that's problematic for me.'" http://t.uani.com/1Jt3fsB
Human Rights
Reuters:
"Relatives of a U.S. citizen jailed by Iran on spying charges in
2011 attended a nuclear summit in Vienna to call for his release. Amir
Hekmati, a 31-year-old Iranian-American, was arrested by Iranian
authorities and convicted of espionage, a charge his relatives and the
United States deny. An initial death sentence was commuted to a 10-year
prison term. This was appealed last November, but the case has stagnated
since then, family members say. 'We want to ... put pressure on these
talks and to make sure that Amir has to be a priority,' the prisoner's
sister, Sarah Hekmati, told Reuters on the sidelines of the meeting in
Vienna." http://t.uani.com/1InK5Db
Domestic
Politics
NYT:
"The red lights of the state television cameras blinked on and he
started speaking. He praised the Iranian negotiating team as great
patriots and wise men. Then he reversed field, specifying seven 'red
lines' for the negotiators, strictures that appeared to undercut several
of the central agreements they had already reached with the West.
Afterward, most in the audience were confused, friend and foe. Did Iran's
leader just derail the talks by making impossible demands days before the
June 30 deadline to reach a deal? Or, more likely, was he trying to
strengthen the hand of his representatives in the negotiations? Whatever
the interpretation, it was a classic performance by Mr. Khamenei, part of
a strategy of ambiguity that analysts say he has followed for more than a
decade on the tortuous path to a nuclear deal that, if achieved on his
terms, would crown his legacy. 'Our leader deliberately takes ambiguous
stances, because our enemies, including the United States, constantly
shift their positions,' said Hossein Ghayyoumi, a cleric and politician who
supports a nuclear deal. 'In politics, details and red lines can shift
from time to time.' This ambiguity serves multiple purposes. In Iran's
opaque political system, the supreme leader presides over a spectrum of
factions all vying for power, influence and money. By weaving back and
forth - praising the 'patriotism' of the nuclear negotiators, for
instance, while drawing 'red lines' in the negotiations - he keeps the
moderate opposition happy while placating the hard-liners in the clergy
and the military." http://t.uani.com/1JjGwwg
Reuters:
"A final deal to resolve the Iranian nuclear dispute could heighten
domestic political tensions with two major elections looming in the
Islamic Republic, analysts and officials said. Easing economic sanctions
if a deal is reached will bolster President Hassan Rouhani's position
within Iran's complex power structure bringing a political boost for
liberal candidates in 2016 elections for parliament and for the Assembly
of Experts, a clerical body with nominal power over the supreme leader.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all
matters of state, has backed Rouhani's efforts to pursue a nuclear
settlement and his dealings with the United States so as to improve the
parlous state of Iran's economy. But Khamenei, who took over in 1989 from
the founder of the Islamic Republic late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, has
also worked to ensure that no group, including among his own hardline
allies, gains enough power to challenge him. Khamenei will not want
pragmatist President Rouhani to gain too much power and influence ahead
of the important elections, an Iranian official said. 'The leader has
always made sure not to give too much authority to any official because
it will damage the political establishment,' said the official, who asked
not to be named." http://t.uani.com/1C1uqs2
Reuters:
"Iran's judicial system must become more transparent and political
crimes should be clearly defined, President Hassan Rouhani said on
Sunday, in some of his strongest comments on domestic reform since taking
office. The president, elected in 2013 with a promise to enact social
reforms and create a more open political environment, has so far seen his
efforts thwarted by powerful conservative factions, particularly in the
judiciary. Speaking at a televised judicial conference in Tehran, Rouhani
called for more transparency in the prosecution of so-called political
and security crimes that have seen large numbers of Iranian activists and
journalists put behind bars. 'I hope we can define and codify political
crimes during this government, with the cooperation of the judiciary, and
put forward and approve a bill so it is clear what is a political or
security crime,' he said. Rouhani also took aim at the judiciary's
sometimes capricious application of other laws, a phenomenon that
frequently disrupts daily life in Iran. 'Our judicial system must be
transparent for everyone... even if the law is transparent, our judicial
processes must also be transparent and accessible to the people,' Rouhani
said. 'We can see that a single law can have many interpretations, and
the judge can make his own presumptions when he delivers a
verdict.'" http://t.uani.com/1Hq1udE
AFP:
"A cultural row in Iran over concerts being cancelled was reignited
Sunday when the country's judiciary chief appeared to criticise President
Hassan Rouhani's liberal remarks on the subject... Rouhani, addressing
the subject on June 13, said that if a concert is officially approved and
people buy tickets their plans should not be disrupted. 'Such
interventions are a violation of people's rights,' he said... However,
Sadegh Larijani, who heads up the judiciary responsible for prosecuting
crime and administering courts, seemed to undercut Rouhani in a speech
Sunday attended by the president. 'I was sorry to hear somewhere a cleric
say that banning these concerts was against the people's rights,' said
Larijani, who like Rouhani is also a cleric. 'This is really surprising.
One of the rights of the people is that things should not be against
Islamic rules.' Having said the issue had been overblown by the media,
given nine concerts out of 300 had been stopped since late March,
Larijani went further in what seemed to be thinly-veiled criticism of
Rouhani. 'Second and more important is that some executive officials of
the country have an improper understanding and they say that if we have
given a permit then no one has the right to revoke it,' Larijani said.
'Well, this is wrong. The judiciary has responsibilities regarding forbidden
conduct. Revoking of permissions is dependent on the law.'" http://t.uani.com/1g2dK9L
Foreign Affairs
AP:
"After two years of high-pressure gatherings, a sense of
predictability has emerged in the negotiations between U.S. Secretary of
State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
Neither is letting the pressure show even as they and other global powers
are at the cusp of an agreement that could redefine security in the
Middle East and beyond for decades to come. Just a short while ago, a
snapshot alone of these two enemies engaged in discussions on nuclear and
other matters would have been a bombshell felt in capitals around the
world. Now, whether or not the U.S. and its negotiating powers can clinch
a pact in Austria's capital over the next several days, it's hard to
imagine the tentative U.S.-Iranian rapprochement ending anytime soon.
It's become the new normal." http://t.uani.com/1IGaqIq
Reuters:
"Venezuela has signed an agreement with Iran for a $500 million
credit line to fund joint investments and help improve supplies of goods
'necessary for the Venezuelan people,' President Nicolas Maduro said on
Friday... 'We've signed (an agreement for) an open credit for $500
million that will begin to function immediately,' Maduro said during a
televised address following a meeting with an Iranian delegation." http://t.uani.com/1Hsu3sK
Opinion &
Analysis
Ray Takeyh in
WashPost: "As the nuclear negotiations between Iran
and the United States enter their final stages, one of the most salient
questions that should be considered is how the Islamic Republic would
spend the billions of dollars it would receive as a result of an accord.
Proponents of a deal insist that Iran will funnel much of this newfound
wealth into its depleted economy. By their telling, even during dire
economic times Iran prioritized funding for its malign activities and
thus doesn't need to steer new money in their direction. Such a curious
justification overlooks how Iran's regional policies, and its internal
dynamics, are undergoing momentous changes. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei
stands as one of the most successful Persian imperialists in the history
of modern Iran. In the 1970s, at the height of his power, the shah did
not enjoy a commanding influence in Iraq. Lebanon's factional politics
continued to elude him, the Assad dynasty was no mere subsidiary of Iran
and the Persian Gulf emirates resisted his pretensions. Today, Khamenei
has essential control of much of the Iraqi state, he is the most
important external actor in Syria, and Hezbollah provides him with not
just a means of manipulating Lebanon's politics but also shock troops who
can be deployed on various war fronts. In the Gulf, the United States'
crumbling alliances offer Iran many tempting opportunities. Proponents of
the view that Iran will not become a more aggressive regional power in
the aftermath of a deal ignore how the Middle East has evolved since the
Arab awakenings of 2011. The post-colonial Arab state system that
featured the dominant nations of Egypt and Iraq is no more. Egypt is too
preoccupied with internal squabbles to offer regional leadership while
Iraq is a fragmented nation ruled by a Shiite government ostracized from
Sunni Arab councils. Iran has embarked on a dramatic new mission and is
seeking to project its power into corners of the Middle East in ways that
were never possible before. This is not traditional Iranian foreign
policy with its sponsorship of terrorism and support for rejectionist
groups targeting Israel; imperialism beckons the mullahs, but it is also
economically burdensome. Without an arms control agreement and the
financial rewards it will bring - from sanctions relief, the release of
funds entrapped abroad and new investments - Iran would find it difficult
to subsidize this imperial surge... The much-discussed terms of the
impending agreement with Iran thus offer the theocracy all that it wants.
The accord would concede a vast enrichment capacity, as well as accepting
both a heavy water plant and a well-fortified underground enrichment
facility that the United States once vowed to shutter. It would permit an
elaborate research and development program and would likely rely on an
inspection regime that falls short of indispensable 'anytime, anywhere'
access. In the meantime, the sanctions architecture will be diminished,
and the notion of ever 'snapping back' sanctions into place once they are
lifted is delusional. And because the agreement itself would be
term-limited, there would be no practical limits on Iran's nuclear ambitions
upon its expiration. However, as disturbing as all this may be, the most
important legacy of the prospective agreement many not even lie in the
nuclear realm. The massive financial gains from the deal would enable the
Islamic Republic's imperial surge while allowing a repressive regime that
was on the brink of collapse in 2009 to consolidate power. This would be
no small achievement for Iran's emboldened rulers." http://t.uani.com/1RLQ45j
Reps. Elise
Stefanik (R-N.Y.), Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.), Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) & Lee
Zeldin (R-N.Y.) in The Hill: "As members of the New
York congressional delegation, we have always been committed to working
across the aisle and doing what's best for all New Yorkers. But there is
one issue that brings us together even more than others: preventing Iran
from developing a nuclear weapons capability. National security
transcends party politics, and a nuclear Iran would pose a grave national
security concern to the United States as well as to our allies around the
world. or decades, Iran has illicitly pursued a nuclear weapon while
simultaneously lying to the international community and cheating on its
international non-proliferation obligations. We must be under no
illusions that Iran will be become a trustworthy member of the family of
nations with the signing of a pen. As the U.S. works to finalize an
agreement with Iran in the coming weeks, we must be mindful of the
ramifications of any agreement that is less than ironclad. For an
agreement to truly cut off Iran's path to a nuclear weapon, it must
include a rigorous inspections and verification regime that gives
international inspectors access to potential nuclear sites without
approval from Iran. We have serious concerns with numerous elements of
this possible agreement. The agreement should mandate that Iran disclose
its past military-related nuclear activities. Without this information,
it is impossible to know the real length of Iran's break out time or to
create an accurate verification mechanism. Another key element is slow,
phased in sanctions relief that is commensurate with Iran's compliance. A
potential 'signing bonus' would provide Iran with a flood of cash before
it begins to implement the agreement. Iran does not deserve the benefit
of the doubt given its history of violating international obligations and
pursuing a nuclear weapons program illicitly. It remains the world's
biggest state sponsor of terrorism. Iran is bankrolling Hezbollah, the
brutal Assad regime in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and other terrorist
organizations that threaten the U.S. and our allies around the world.
Finally, an agreement should ensure that Iran's enrichment facilities and
heavy water reactor are not simply turned off, but rather, substantially
degraded and disabled. Without doing so, it would be akin to giving a
convicted murderer an unloaded gun and simply stashing the bullets in the
closet... The national security of the U.S. and our allies and regional
stability must not be turned into a political issue. Preventing Iran from
developing a nuclear weapon is vital to all New Yorkers and all
Americans. We will review any agreement submitted to Congress through the
lens of what is best for New York and what is best for America." http://t.uani.com/1eV6ZXd
Mike Rogers &
Arthur L. Herman in NRO: "'We welcome war with the
U.S., as we believe that it will be the scene for our success to display
the real potentials of our power.' So said Brigadier General Hossein
Salami, the lieutenant commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps (IRGC), via state-run Iranian television last month. What makes
Salami so confident about going up against the world's most extensive
military? Maybe it's the increasing clout of IRGC's elite terrorist
division, the Quds Force, in the Middle East, including its very public
involvement in the fighting against ISIS in Iraq - as America's influence
lessens in that conflict. Eight years ago, the Quds Force was killing
Americans in Iraq. Now the administration is on the brink of a deal with
Iran that will give that brutal and shadowy group the green light to
expand its export of the Iranian revolution under the protection of a
nuclear umbrella. There is a growing consensus among Democratic as well
as Republican lawmakers - not to mention the rest of the world - that the
Obama administration is set to make a very bad deal on Iran's ongoing
nuclear-weapons program... Yet the implications of allowing Iran to
continue its nuclear program go beyond triggering runaway nuclear
proliferation among Arab states in the region. It will also empower the
operatives of Quds Force to continue to expand their bloody activities,
as we sit on the sidelines. The Quds Force is the secretive spearhead of
Iran's push for hegemony in the Middle East. Named after the Arabic word
for Jerusalem, it is part intelligence service and part special
operations. It has been training and equipping Islamic revolutionary
groups around the Middle East for decades, and it is responsible for some
of the most notorious terrorist acts in the world. It has been a key
trainer and sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah in their ongoing fight to
destroy Israel and murder Jews. In 1994, for example, the Quds Force
helped to plan and finance an attack by Hezbollah on a Jewish center in
Buenos Aires that killed 85 people. Then, following U.S. operations in
Iraq in 2003, the Quds Force quickly moved in to finance, train, and
equip counterinsurgency groups, both Shiite and Sunni, to kill Americans.
In fact, the Quds Force played a key role in the expansion of the use of
IEDs against Americans in Iraq in 2004-5. Many of those weapons had parts
manufactured in Iran. Hundreds of American deaths in the Iraq War can be
traced directly to Iran, the IRGC, and the Quds Force... President Obama
himself had accused the Quds Force of helping Bashar Assad crush the
demonstrations that broke out against his regime during the Arab Spring -
not to mention the terrorist group's murderous role in the ongoing Syrian
civil war as described by Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper. This is what the Quds Force is capable of without the protection
of a nuclear weapon. Imagine what they would do with the security
guarantee that comes with that ultimate deterrent, without fear of
reprisal from the West or other Arab states. Yet the administration seems
to be blind to the threat, or to be examining the nuclear program
separately from the rest of Iran's foreign policy. Just a month ago the
administration ordered our military to conduct air-support operations for
the forces fighting in Iraq's Tikrit - Shiite militias led by the Quds
Force's top commander. Now it may have to send in American planes in
support of those same militias in the campaign to retake Ramadi. Asking
U.S. pilots to risk their lives to help the Quds Force, in any capacity,
is a sad change given Iran's role in the deaths of so many of our
fighting men and women. Giving this terrorist group a nuclear umbrella,
and by extension an inviolate base from which to plan, train for, and
finance attacks, poses a direct danger to the region and the world. It is
one more reason why the current nuclear deal the administration seems so
desperate to get needs to be scrapped." http://t.uani.com/1C1J9mP
|
|
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