Join UANI
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