Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Eye on Iran: Another Democratic Senator Says He Will Vote Against Iran Nuclear Deal






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

WashPost: "Sen. Robert Menendez, a prominent Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced Tuesday that he will vote against the Obama administration's nuclear agreement with Iran. Menendez, of New Jersey, is the second prominent Senate Democrat to publicly oppose the deal before next month's vote, following Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York. His announcement, made in a speech at Seton Hall University, is a potential setback for the administration as it seeks the support of enough Democrats to prevent Congress from overriding Obama's planned veto of any resolution that would sink the agreement. But it was not a surprise. Menendez has been very critical of the deal finalized in Vienna last month, and he was seen as unlikely to be won over by the White House. 'If Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it,' Menendez said in an advance copy of his speech . Menendez said he not only will vote against the Iran agreement but also would vote to override a veto... Menendez in his speech accused negotiators from the United States and its five negotiating partners of squandering leverage created by sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy and said they should have walked away from the talks. 'It is difficult to believe that the world's greatest powers - the U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany and the European Union, sitting on one side of the table, and Iran sitting alone on the other side, staggering from sanctions and rocked by plummeting oil prices - could not have achieved some level of critical dismantlement,' he said... 'We have now abandoned our long-held policy of preventing nuclear proliferation and are now embarked, not on preventing nuclear proliferation, but on managing or containing it,' Menendez said. 'The agreement that has been reached failed to achieve the one thing it set out to achieve,' he added. 'It failed to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state at a time of its choosing.'" http://t.uani.com/1LkQZvl

Philadelphia Inquirer: "As New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez announced his firm (but unsurprising) opposition Tuesday to President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, the votes of three other local Democrats hung in the balance, and with them critical tallies that could help determine whether the accord survives congressional objections. Sens. Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, Cory Booker of New Jersey, and Chris Coons of Delaware all remain undecided on the pact... Two pro-Israel lobbying groups - United Against a Nuclear Iran and Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran - have blitzed the Philadelphia and New York airwaves with ads in recent weeks opposing the measure... Booker plans to return to Washington on Thursday for further briefings; Casey plans to have an announcement the week beginning Aug. 31; and Coons will 'likely' make his decision this month, aides said." http://t.uani.com/1LkKEQB

Politico: "They've got Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez. But Republicans need a whole lot more Democrats to have any hope of derailing President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Indeed, the most pressing question at this point is whether they can even get the 60 votes in opposition that are needed to break a filibuster and get a disapproval resolution to Obama's desk. Senate Majority Mitch McConnell himself has all but said overriding a veto isn't going to happen as Congress prepares to vote on the deal when it returns from its monthlong recess in September. The announcements by Schumer two weeks ago and then Menendez on Tuesday certainly were a boon to Republican lawmakers and groups still holding out hope of squelching the controversial accord. But after those two New York-area senators, it becomes more difficult to identify other Democrats who'll be willing to break with Obama on his signature foreign policy initiative... The math remains firmly on Obama's side." http://t.uani.com/1J4aaUf

Nuclear Program & Agreement

AFP: "Iran's parliament announced Wednesday the final composition of a 15-member panel largely composed of conservative lawmakers to review the country's nuclear deal with world powers. Iranian MPs have demanded a stronger say in the deal negotiated by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif with US Secretary of State John Kerry and top diplomats from five other leading nations. Along with criticism of the nuclear talks in hardline conservative media outlets, Iran's parliament has witnessed deep scepticism over the diplomacy that finally led to the accord in Vienna on July 14... The nuclear deal review panel, comprising 13 conservatives and two reformists, will analyse the text of the agreement. Iran's parliament may then vote on approving or rejecting the accord, likely in October after a similar review by US lawmakers in Washington. A strong majority of MPs in Tehran -- 201 of 290 -- requested such a measure. But formal oversight of the accord rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), a powerful committee headed by President Hassan Rouhani and of which Zarif is also a member." http://t.uani.com/1PlZyUx

Al-Monitor: "Iranian nuclear negotiator Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi spoke to the Iranian journal Diplomat Monthly about the nuclear negotiations and the different circumstances facing the last three administrations in Iran. The news website Entekhab selected some key passages from the interview that shed light on how Iran changed its tactics in its nuclear program and the negotiations during the last three Iranian administrations... He continued, 'The actions of the two sides (our pursuing a nuclear program and increasing sanctions from the other side) went forward until we reached a point that our hands were full from a nuclear perspective, meaning we had reached an irreversible point. When our hands were full, there was no point in paying the costs. So we went after consolidating our achievements. This is how we went after a new round of talks, with our hands full.' Araghchi said, 'During the last 10-12 years, the principle of our nuclear policy has been constant. However, I do not deny that if someone says that had we behaved in a different way - in tactics, not in principle - it was possible that our costs would have been less.' He continued, 'It's possible to say that had we pursued a certain method earlier or later, had we done more or done less, we would have paid fewer costs or we would have gotten better results. This discussion is always there. But could we have become nuclear without costs? Certainly not. We had to pay the costs. Everything has a cost.'" http://t.uani.com/1MxU0ac

Free Beacon: "The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI) stated on Tuesday that the Islamic Republic will soon be opening 'special schools' to train future Iranian nuclear experts, according to regional reports. Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's AEOI, announced that the country 'plans to construct special schools to teach nuclear science and technology to the students,' according to Iran's state-controlled Fars News Agency. Salehi made the announcement during a special ceremony celebrating the beginning of construction on a 'nuclear high school' in northeastern Iran, according to the report. 'Building specialized nuclear schools across Iran are among the AEOI's plans,' Salehi was quoted as saying." http://t.uani.com/1hoTW1uolated the norms and has complied with its undertakings." http://t.uani.com/1E0J2ZM

Congressional Vote


CBS Philly: "New Jersey Congressman Donald Norcross is one of the latest Democrats to come out and say 'No' to the Obama Administration's proposed nuclear deal with Iran. On Tuesday night at a community meeting at Congregation Sons of Israel in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, the subject of a nuclear Iran took center stage. 'There's a general concern about this agreement and what effect it might have on the security of the United States, Israel, and the whole world, and that's why they're coming out here, to show their concern and to learn more about it,' says Mark Hess, one of the meeting's organizers... Norcross says at this point, the deal gives too many concessions to Iran, which makes it fall way short of where he wants it to be. For that reason, Norcross says he will not be supporting it. He's among a growing list of Democratic lawmakers who say they disagree with the deal. New Jersey senior senator Robert Menendez is also opposed to the plan." http://t.uani.com/1KvUSHZ

Observer: "The domestic and international tensions over the Obama administration-backed Iran deal flared at a town hall meeting on the subject Brooklyn Congressman Hakeem Jeffries held last night in Brighton Beach. Perhaps a hundred people packed into a Jewish community center in the Brooklyn enclave, which is home to thousands of Russian-speaking emigres from the former Soviet Union, many of whom fled anti-Semitism in their native nations... Mr. Jeffries, a black Democrat with a large Jewish constituency, repeatedly stressed that he had not yet decided how to vote on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action... Former State Department official Joel Rubin flew in from Washington, D.C.-and arrived 45 minutes late-to defend the administration's stance. He appeared to treat a nuclear Iran as an inevitability that can only be postponed. 'There is only one country in the world that can stop Iran from getting a bomb, and that's Iran. Only Iran can decide not to make the bomb. We can't bomb them into a place where they won't make it,' he argued, amid heckling from the audience. 'Would you rather have them have a nuclear weapon in a few months or in 10 to 15 years?' The congressman then took comments from several dozen members of the audience, who-except for two-were universally opposed to the deal." http://t.uani.com/1TSRZpN

WashPost: "Secure America Now, an advocacy group opposing the Iran nuclear deal, is unveiling a new Snapchat ad Wednesday that targets Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a critical vote on the agreement. The ad uses what's called a 'filter' - an image that Snapchat users can superimpose onto their photos and videos and share with their friends on the social media site. The filter, shown below, depicts the image of microphones along with the text, 'Tell Senator Cardin: No to the bad Iran deal!' The ad, which will be promoted in Maryland, is the first time a Snapchat technology is being used to lobby a specific lawmaker on a single piece of legislation... Other parts of the digital strategy include a website, StopTheBadIranDeal.com, which has a scorecard on lawmakers based on their position on the deal. The site allows users to click  a 'call now' button that connects them with the offices of Cardin and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who is also undecided on the deal. Since debuting a week ago, the web site has generated 2,164 calls to Cardin's office and 4,700 emails to his chief of staff, according to statistics tracked by Harris' firm." http://t.uani.com/1USQY3m

Sanctions Relief

Reuters: "Japan and Iran will start negotiations on an investment accord once sanctions are lifted following last month's landmark international deal on Tehran's nuclear program, the Nikkei reported on Wednesday, citing Japanese government sources. Initial talks are being held between the two countries to prepare for the lifting of sanctions and begin formal negotiations, the business daily said, without identifying the sources. Japan is keen to boost ties with Iran and invest in resource projects in the country, as well as return imports of Iranian oil to about 10 percent of the total from 5 percent now after sanctions forced Japanese refiners to cut purchases, it said. Earlier this month, Daishiro Yamagiwa, vice-minister of Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), visited Tehran and met top government officials, accompanied by executives from the oil, gas and other industries... Inpex Corp, Japan's biggest energy explorer, JGC Corp, an engineering company, and trading houses Mitsubishi Corp, Mitsui & Co and Itochu Corp joined Yamagiwa on the visit, the Nikkei said." http://t.uani.com/1TUSuzD

Al-Monitor: "After the July 14 nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers, one of the issues that has been heavily discussed in the Iranian media is the country's auto industry. In order to understand the importance of the automobile industry for the Iranian economy and why there are extensive and heated discussions about it, some important facts need to be borne in mind. Iran is the biggest car producer in the Middle East. Before the economic sanctions were imposed, it was the 11th biggest car producer in the world. The automotive sector is the country's second-largest industry in Iran after oil. Crucially, it employs more than 700,000 factory workers. Amin Azad, an Iranian journalist who closely follows Iran's automobile industry, told Al-Monitor, 'The economic sanctions were a big setback for Iran's auto industry, especially at a time when the auto industry was ready for a big jump.' Azad emphasized that Western sanctions did not only halt this industry's progress, but hit output and prices: 'Production decreased because of the sanctions while the price of cars increased radically, about 300%, because of the same sanctions. Output dropped from 1.5 million cars per year to less than 700,000. More importantly, the quality of Iranian-made cars dropped as well.' Clearly, the sanctions have had a devastating effect on this important sector. Two years into his term and with a nuclear deal in hand, President Hassan Rouhani now appears to be focusing on reviving the country's second largest industry." http://t.uani.com/1WELQSb

Terrorism

JPost: "As Iran made clear it will continue supporting proxies waging war against Israel, and Iran said Russia would soon provide it state-of-the-art S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the North on Tuesday and pledged Israel would strike hard at those who try to harm it... Netanyahu, accompanied by Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, said he came to the northern border to see first-hand the army's preparedness for the threats coming from the North, which he laid squarely at Iran's doorstep. 'The leader of Iran, [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei, said yesterday, and I quote, We will use all means to support all those who fight Israel,' Netanyahu said. 'Iranian Foreign Minister [Mohammad Javad] Zarif said a few days ago in Beirut, after meeting the head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, that the nuclear deal has provided an historic opportunity to stand against the Zionist entity.' These comments, the prime minister said, bear out as 'correct and true' what Israel has been saying all along: 'The money that will flow to Iran in the wake of the nuclear agreement will serve it to strengthen the terrorist organizations operating against us, in its name and under its auspices, in the avowed goal to destroy Israel.'" http://t.uani.com/1gXCqk2

Human Rights

WashPost: "Tuesday is visitors' day for Jason Rezaian, the day that Iranian authorities permit the imprisoned Washington Post journalist to see his mother and his wife. As they have every Tuesday for the past few weeks, Mary Rezaian and Yeganeh Salehi arrived at Tehran's Evin Prison in the morning and walked through a labyrinth of halls to a waiting car that drove them to another building housing a small salon furnished with chairs around a coffee table. There they met, the two women sitting on either side of Rezaian, each holding one of his hands. But this Tuesday's visit was unlike any other over the past month and a half that Mary Rezaian has been in Iran for her son. They are waiting for an imminent verdict in the case against The Post's Tehran bureau chief, who has been held for 13 months and is accused of espionage and other crimes. The judge's verdict could be handed down Wednesday. Or it may be next week. They have no hint when it will come, but they fear Rezaian will not be coming home anytime soon. 'It's safe to say he's steeling himself,' said Mary Rezaian in a phone call after the weekly visit. 'He's preparing himself to hear a verdict other than acquittal. A severe verdict, with a long sentence. We're preparing ourselves for anything. It would be wonderful, a miracle, if he were acquitted, but I think it's highly unlikely.'" http://t.uani.com/1E3xFAo

IHR: "Ten prisoners were hanged in two prisons in the southern Iranian province of Hormozgan early this morning. According to the official website of the Iranian Judiciary in Hormozgan province all the prisoners were charged with drug-related offences. Six of the prisoners were hanged in the prison of Bandar Abbas while four others were hanged in the prison of Minab... Iran is the country with the highest number of drug-related executions." http://t.uani.com/1J3OUQN

AP: "Iranian state television is reporting a former prosecutor in Tehran has been acquitted of murder charges over the 2009 killing of three detained protesters. Wednesday's report on the website of state television quoted Mojtaba Nazari, the lawyer for Iran's social security fund, as announcing the court's decision in the case involving Saeed Mortazavi. The report said while Mortazavi was acquitted of murder charges, he will serve six months in prison over receiving 'illegal money' during his time as the head of the social security fund." http://t.uani.com/1NEJRam

Opinion & Analysis

Sen. Bob Menendez in NYPost: "President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly said that the choice is between this Iran nuclear agreement and war. I reject that proposition. If the P5+1 had not achieved an agreement, would we be at war with Iran? I don't believe that. For all those who have said they have not heard - from anyone who opposes the agreement - a better solution, they're wrong. Advocates of the deal argue that a good deal that would have dismantled critical elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure isn't attainable - that the Iranians were tough negotiators - and that despite our massive economic leverage and the weight of the international community we couldn't buy more than 10 years of inspection and verification in exchange for permanent sanctions relief and for revoking Iran's pariah status. I don't believe that. And I believe we could still get a better deal and here's how: We can disapprove this agreement, without rejecting the entire agreement. We should direct the administration to re-negotiate by authorizing the continuation of negotiations and the Joint Plan of Action - including Iran's $700 million-a-month lifeline, which to date have accrued to Iran's benefit to the tune of $10 billion, and pausing further reductions of purchases of Iranian oil and other sanctions pursuant to the original JPOA. I'm even willing to consider authorizing a sweetener - a one-time release of a predetermined amount of funds as a good-faith down payment on the negotiations. A continuation of talks would allow the re-consideration of just a few, but a critical few issues, including: First, immediate ratification by Iran of the Additional Protocol to ensure we have a permanent international arrangement with Iran for access to suspect sites. Second, a ban on centrifuge R&D for the duration of the agreement to ensure that Iran won't have the capacity to quickly break out, just as the UN Security Council Resolution and sanctions snapback is off the table. Third, close the Fordow enrichment facility. The sole purpose of Fordow was to harden Iran's nuclear program to a military attack. We need to close the facility and foreclose Iran's future ability to use this facility. If Iran has nothing to hide they shouldn't need to put it under a mountain. Fourth, the full resolution of the 'possible military dimensions' of Iran's program. We need an arrangement that isn't set up to whitewash this issue. Iran and the IAEA must resolve the issue before permanent sanctions relief, and failure of Iran to cooperate should result in an automatic sanctions snapback. Fifth, extend the duration of the agreement. One of the single most concerning elements of the deal is its 10-15 year sunset of restrictions on Iran's program, with off-ramps starting after year eight. We were promised an agreement of significant duration and we got less than half of what we are looking for. Iran should have to comply for as long as they deceived the world, so at least 20 years. And sixth, we need agreement now about what penalties will be collectively imposed by the P5+1 for Iranian violations, both small and midsized, as well as a clear statement as to the so-called grandfather clause in paragraph 37 of the JCPOA, to ensure that the US position about not shielding contracts entered into legally upon re-imposition of sanctions is shared by our allies. At the same time we should: Extend the authorization of the Iran Sanctions Act, which expires in 2016, to ensure that we have an effective snapback option... And we should make it absolutely clear that we want a deal, but we want the right deal - and that a deal that does nothing more than delay the inevitable isn't a deal we will make." http://t.uani.com/1USNqxU

David Albright, Houston Wood & Andrea Stricker in ISIS: "A critical criteria of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is a twelve month breakout timeline for Iran's remaining gas centrifuge program.  However, this 12 month criteria does not hold if Iran were to re-install the advanced IR-2m centrifuges during a breakout.  Breakout timelines of seven months result if these centrifuges are re-installed.  The U.S. administration makes the assessment that Iran will not re-install these centrifuges because they are unreliable and work poorly.  This assessment preserves a 12-month breakout timeline but it appears questionable.  The JCPOA has many strengths but one of its most serious shortcomings is that it almost ensures that Iran can emerge in 15-20 years as a nuclear power with the potential, at a time of its choosing, to make enough weapon-grade uranium for several nuclear weapons within a few weeks.  Addressing this weakness, in particular by finding ways to ensure Iran does not build a semi-commercial enrichment program, should become a critical part of the implementation of the JCPOA and not left to future generations of decision makers." http://t.uani.com/1J3PrSO

John W. Stroud in The Hill: "What is it worth to this country to prevent a nuclear Iran? No one wants a war, especially those of us who have fought in one before. But for those of us who have worn the battle-tested uniforms of our nation in times of conflict, we fear that the Iran nuclear deal will make the region and the world far more dangerous, and actually increases, not decreases the possibility of armed conflict. As a veteran who opposes this deal without supporting war, I fear that in a well-intentioned effort to ensure peace in the near-term, we may be making the world more perilous for our children. Iran is expanding its influence in the Gulf region and beyond.  It is boldly assaulting commercial shipping vessels, training and arming fighters to neighboring countries to help overthrow governments, and is sending terrorists to the borders of our ally, the democratic state of Israel. We are not just negotiating with any country, but with one that has American blood on its hands. In 1983, Hezbollah suicide bombers in Lebanon, in conjunction with their Iranian patrons, detonated explosive vests and murdered 241 American military servicemen. More recently, Iran smuggled sophisticated weaponry to Iraqi militias, which were used to kill and maim thousands of American troops. Yet the Iran nuclear agreement, signed on July 14 in Vienna, treats Iran as a normal country, ignoring its history of malign activities and its unabashed hostility toward the United States. Upon implementation, this deal will provide Tehran with $100 billion in frozen assets almost immediately, filling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps' coffers at a time when Iran's strategic plan includes inciting violence in places like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Gaza. As a veteran of this country, I cannot stand idly by as we align ourselves with Iran. It would be one thing to provide Iran with sanctions relief for a deal that is foolproof, but instead, we are on the precipice of granting Iran its frozen assets in exchange for a bad deal... The deal permits Iran to acquire conventional arms in just five years and to continue its ballistic missile program in eight years, or possibly sooner. Iran, the nation with the largest number of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, can then legally begin expanding its intercontinental ballistic missile program. Money.  Weapons. Missiles. Bombs.  The nuclear deal proposes that the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism be permitted to buy, acquire, and likely export its own brand of violence across the most unstable region in the world, threatening the lives of countless Americans abroad, servicemen/women and civilians alike.  The bottom line is that we cannot trust a regime that has American blood on its hands and chants  'death to America,' all the while continuing its nefarious activities in the Middle East; it undermines our national interests, our national security, and the erodes the trust and relationships we have built with our allies. Above all, our goal must remain preventing, not simply delaying an Iranian nuclear weapons capability. Congress must rise above partisanship and rhetoric as it deliberates what may be the most consequential foreign policy decision of our time. When put to the test of answering the question, 'will this make our country safer?' this deal falls dangerously short. It is therefore essential for the security of our nation that Congress rejects this flawed nuclear agreement." http://t.uani.com/1MxUeyb

Hassan Lasjerdi in Tehran Times: "Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei met the participants of the AhlulBayt World Assembly and the eighth summit of the Islamic Radio and Television Union (IRTVU), where he pointed to Washington's efforts to take advantage of the outcome of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), sealed between Iran and the 5+1 group of world powers on July 14. He said although it is still not clear if the deal will be passed or rejected in Iran or in America, Washington seeks to misuse its outcome to exert more pressure on Iran. He added, 'We have firmly blocked this path,' and that Tehran would never allow the U.S. to infiltrate into Iran's economic, political, and cultural spheres. There are some points to bear in mind about the Leader's viewpoint regarding Washington's policies. Firstly, some wrongly believe that following the nuclear pact, Iran and the United States are set to resolve all the outstanding issues they have in their relations. They hold the idea that Tehran and Washington will forget and forgive what happened in the past, presuming that their bilateral ties will be normalized in a short matter of time. Secondly, some hold the idea that following the accord, Iran and the United States will turn into partners and will use one another's capabilities to resolve the crises crippling the Middle East region and beyond. Thirdly, some are claiming that by sealing the deal, Iran has bypassed its Islamic identity, and that Tehran is merely seeking to meet its own interests. Forth, some observers are trying to project to other Islamic countries that after the JCPOA, Iran has forgone its anti-West and anti-hegemonic spirit and is playing along the West to serve its interests. Fifth, many hold that following the deal, Iran would forget its anti-imperialist drive, and that Iran's cultural identity would be shattered by the West. Such claims about Iran losing its spirit and identity are made by political analysts, particularly those in the West, who try to impose their ideas on the international community. Some also believe that the so-called New Middle East scheme is distorting the regional countries approaches and policies and is smashing their beliefs and making them accomplices with the West. Amid all these speculations, the Leader has highlighted Iran's policy, stressing that Iran would keep on practicing its anti-hegemonic, anti-imperialism, and resistance policy. In other words, the Leader has clearly indicated that taking a single step to resolve a number of issues does not mean turning a blind eye to all what has happened in the past, and that the West needs to take more serious and fundamental steps to make up for what it has done in the past." http://t.uani.com/1K5MLWS
         

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