|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
The Hill:
"Former Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is taking over as the head of
an advocacy group trying to kill the nuclear deal with Iran, after a
former executive decided to embrace the agreement. United Against Nuclear
Iran (UANI) - an advocacy group founded in 2008 by former CIA Director
Jim Woolsey, late diplomat Richard Holbrooke and others - announced late
on Monday that the hawkish ex-Connecticut senator would take the reins as
chairman of the group as it heads into a heated month of lobbying on the
agreement. 'UANI has led the effort to economically isolate the Iranian
regime, and its bipartisan and international expertise makes it a highly
respected voice on the merits of the Iran agreement,' said Lieberman -
the 2000 Democratic Party's vice presidential nominee - in a statement.
The move comes as part of a broader shakeup at the group, which on Monday
announced that it would be running commercials to scuttle the nuclear
pact... On Monday, UANI announced that it would be running 30-second
national and regional television ads in a multi-million dollar effort to
kill the agreement. 'The nuclear deal with Iran left four Americans
behind,' a narrator intones in the video clip. 'We need a better
deal.'" http://t.uani.com/1N737PS
Bloomberg:
"A group of Iraq war veterans is launching a million-dollar effort
to oppose President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, trying to counter the
president's argument that those who are against the deal are in favor of
war. Obama has said recently that there are only two camps: those who
support the deal versus those who would prefer a bloody and costly war
like the conflict in Iraq. The new ad campaign complicates that,
asserting that the deal itself will lead to more war. And the voices
putting forth that case do not prefer war; they are soldiers who have had
enough of it. The group, Veterans Against the Deal, was founded last
month as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit... Its national campaign starts today,
including television ads in states whose members of Congress are
undecided on the Iran deal... The first of the group's videos features
retired staff sergeant Robert Bartlett, who was badly injured by an
Iranian bomb while serving in Iraq in 2005. 'Every politician who is
involved in this will be held accountable, they will have blood on their hands,'
he says in the ad. 'A vote for this deal means more money for Iranian
terrorism. What do you think they are going to do when they get more
money?'" http://t.uani.com/1L3X2nK
Politico:
"Americans appear to be split on the Iran nuclear deal, but a plurality
seems to agree that Iran got more of what it wanted with the
negotiations, according to a new Monmouth University poll out Monday.
Asked whether the United States or Iran got the better end of the
agreement, 41 percent responded that the regime in Tehran gained more,
while just 14 percent said the U.S. benefited more than their Iranian
counterparts. Roughly two-thirds (67 percent) of self-identified
Republicans said that Iran got more of what it wanted, while just 23
percent of Democrats responded similarly. A little more than just 2 in 10
Americans (23 percent) said that both Iran and the U.S. benefited
mutually. Americans seem less certain about whether Congress should
approve the final agreement, with 41 percent expressing uncertainty. Just
27 percent say lawmakers should move to approve the deal, while 32
percent say they should vote against it. 'The public is not convinced
that Congress should reject the plan, but they can't shake their nagging
doubts that Iran has the upper hand here,' said Monmouth polling director
Patrick Murray in a press release." http://t.uani.com/1f5u8Fl
Nuclear Program & Agreement
The Hill:
"President Obama defended his landmark nuclear deal with Iran, but
conceded the time it takes Tehran to acquire the material to build a bomb
would shrink to 'a matter of months' as the agreement expires. Obama
sought to push back against critics who argue the deal should be
abandoned because it does not permanently cut off Iran's path to a
nuclear weapon. Critics say some of the strictest limits on Iran's
nuclear program go away after 15 years. Asked by NPR's Steve Inskeep what
Iran's 'breakout time' will be 15 years from now, Obama said 'it shrinks
back down to roughly where it is now ... which is a matter of months.'
But Obama said that was no reason to reject the 15 years of limits on
Iran's program under the deal... The president was clarifying comments he
made on NPR in April, when he said Iran could rush to build a bomb with
'near zero' time for other countries to stop it once the toughest
restrictions expired." http://t.uani.com/1gZZvTT
Congressional
Vote
NYPost:
"Sen. Charles Schumer - keeping a low profile after saying he would
vote against President Obama's nuke deal with Iran - will be basking in
the bright lights of Broadway when a new video billboard thanking him
goes live in Times Square. The 29-by-56-foot digital billboard will debut
as early as Tuesday on the facade of 1500 Broadway, a skyscraper at West
43rd Street also known as Times Square Plaza, one of the most visible
buildings at the Crossroads of the World. It's sponsored by United
Against Nuclear Iran, an advocacy group co-founded in 2008 by Mark
Wallace, a former US ambassador to the UN during the George W. Bush
administration. 'We think it's very important to run an education
campaign to reveal the flaws in this deal. The bipartisan thesis ahead of
time was that no deal was better than a bad deal,' Wallace told The Post
on Monday. 'It's in appreciation of Senator Schumer for his direct and
brave statement opposing the Iran deal. Americans across the political
spectrum have been craving politicians who act on principle. This message
is designed to do that, to thank him for sticking to principle instead of
party fealty,' said Wallace." http://t.uani.com/1IWnNnp
The Hill:
"The Obama administration should go back to the negotiating table
with Iran and force the Islamic republic to accept a 'better' nuclear
deal, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Monday. In his first public
remarks since Thursday evening's bombshell announcement that he would
break with the White House and oppose the agreement, the likely next
Senate Democratic leader said that the international pact 'fell short.'
'Some say the only answer to this is war. I don't believe so,' Schumer
said during a press conference in Rochester, N.Y. 'I believe we should go
back and try to get a better deal,' he added. 'The nations of the world
should join us in that.' ... Schumer's decision last week to oppose the
deal upended the congressional debate over the agreement." http://t.uani.com/1JSHJNd
Quinnipiac:
"New York City voters oppose 43 - 36 percent the proposed nuclear
agreement with Iran, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released
today. Jewish voters oppose the proposed pact 53 - 33 percent...
Opposition is 70 - 15 percent among Republican voters and 51 - 32 percent
among independent voters, while Democrats support the pact 43 - 33
percent. Manhattan voters support the nuclear deal 48 - 27 percent, and
Brooklyn voters are divided with support at 40 percent and opposition at
43 percent. Opposition is 42 - 26 percent in The Bronx, 49 - 33 percent
in Queens and 76 - 11 percent in Staten Island. Voters are divided on
whether the deal would make the world safer or not as 40 percent say
safer and 42 percent say less safe. Jewish voters say 51 - 37 percent the
pact would make the world less safe. 'New York City voters agree with
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer in his opposition to the proposed Iran deal,'
said Quinnipiac University Poll Assistant Director Maurice Carroll."
http://t.uani.com/1EljyAL
NPR:
"President Obama says his agreement over Iran's nuclear program -
while facing fierce criticism in Congress and among the American public
now - will look better in years to come. In an interview with NPR,
Obama's tone was restrained, but his words were not. He expressed no
patience for opponents of the deal, saying their arguments are 'illogical
or based on the wrong facts, and then you ask them, 'All right, what's
your alternative?' and there's a deafening silence.' The president also
told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep that his critics need to 'pull out
of the immediate politics' and consider 'the right thing to do for the
country.'" http://t.uani.com/1PiCK8K
USA Today:
"President Obama says critics of the Iran nuclear agreement are
'ideological' and 'illogical.' But in a pair of interviews released Monday,
Obama also concedes that opponents of the deal have some honest
arguments... 'There may be skepticism with any diplomatic initiative with
a regime that is admittedly antagonistic towards us, anti-Semitic, a
sponsor of terrorism: and that's an honest argument,' he said in an
interview to air Tuesday... In a separate interview with the
youth-oriented news site Mic.com, Obama said there are 'absolutely'
legitimate concerns about the agreement. 'It is absolutely true that Iran
has a history of trying to play it close to the line when it comes to its
nuclear program. And so we do have to be very vigilant about
inspections,' he said. 'It's true that under this agreement in 15 years
time, they will be in a position to install more powerful centrifuges that
produce uranium and that at that point they could conceivably break out
and try to get a nuclear weapon.'" http://t.uani.com/1Tl2BCW
Politico:
"President Barack Obama insists he isn't comparing Iranian
hard-liners to Republicans, he is just saying they are making common
cause. In an interview with Jake Horowitz, editor-in-chief of Mic, a news
service aimed at young people, Obama responded to criticism that he
inappropriately linked opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran by
Republicans in the United States with opposition in Iran from political
and religious hard-liners. 'Remember, what I said was, that, it's the
hard-liners in Iran who are most opposed to this deal,' Obama said in the
interview, conducted last week but released Monday. 'And I said, in that
sense, they're making common cause with those who are opposed to this
deal here. I didn't say that they were equivalent.'" http://t.uani.com/1WfwIus
LAT:
"Hillary Rodham Clinton made her most forceful defense yet of
President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran on Monday, saying that 'all bets
are off' if Congress were to reject the deal and warning of the potential
impact to America's standing in the world. 'The Europeans, the Russians,
the Chinese, they're going to say, 'We stuck with the Americans. We agreed
with the Americans. We hammered out this agreement. I guess their
president can't make foreign policy,'' Clinton said at a campaign stop in
Manchester. 'That's a very bad signal to send in a quickly moving and
oftentimes dangerous world.'" http://t.uani.com/1Tl6ckq
Politico:
"In a meeting with 22 Democratic lawmakers on Sunday in Israel,
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he did not intend to tell
them how to vote next month on the Iranian nuclear agreement, House
Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told Haaretz in an interview published
Monday. Describing Netanyahu as 'respectful,' Hoyer said that the prime
minister made it clear that the lawmakers' final responsibility is to
their constituents, according to the report. 'He didn't tell them to vote
one way or another, but it was clear he hopes they will vote against the
agreement because [Netanyahu said] it is a bad deal that will allow Iran
to have a path to a nuclear bomb in 13 years,' Hoyer said, according to
the report. 'He said, 'It is not my place to tell you how to vote. It is
up to you - but my opinion is ...'' This particular meeting lasted one
hour and 45 minutes, Hoyer told Haaretz." http://t.uani.com/1DGg41h
Buzzfeed:
"AIPAC's president told activists on Monday that the lobbying group has
taken the 'high road' in its battle with the White House over the Iran
deal and pushed back against a New York Times article detailing the
fight. 'Over the weekend, the New York Times published an article about
AIPAC's relationship with President Obama and his administration. With
significant media attention on this story and on AIPAC, I want to provide
you with some context and reiterate our overall approach to this
campaign,' AIPAC president Robert Cohen wrote in an email blast to
activists on Monday afternoon, obtained by BuzzFeed News. Cohen wrote
that 'The article reflects multiple inaccuracies stemming from claims by
the administration.' 'Throughout this campaign, AIPAC - along with our
affiliated organization Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran - has taken the
high road,' Cohen wrote. 'I ask that you join us in advancing this
critical effort by keeping the debate about the policy, not the
personalities.'" http://t.uani.com/1N6QTqo
Congressional
Action
WashPost:
"Even if the Obama administration manages to keep the Iran nuclear
agreement alive, the next Iran battle in Congress is closer than you
think. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
recently issued a threatening prediction, surmising that no matter how
Congress ends up voting in September, lawmakers will try to pass an
extension of existing Iran sanctions this fall - even if Iran might
consider that a breach of the nuclear pact. 'My guess is that one of the
first things Congress will do when we finish this debate - I would, say,
give it 60 days - we will pass that extension,' Corker said, referring to
the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), which is due to expire in 2016. 'Even
though Iran says that they believe anything to that effect would be in
violation' of the nuclear pact. ISA seeks to curb Iran's nuclear and
missile activities, as well as its support for terrorism by targeting
sanctions at the country's trade, energy, banking, and defense sectors.
It was first adopted in 1996 as part of a joint package imposing
sanctions against Libya, but was amended several times since and is now
exclusively focused on Iran... But ISA expires in 2016, and many
lawmakers feel that failing to extend it would be cheating the U.S. out
of its own security prematurely... 'We have snapback provisions, right?
Well, if you don't extend ISA, you have nothing to snap back to,' Corker
said Wednesday." http://t.uani.com/1UAGrcX
Sanctions
Relief
World Bank:
"Lifting sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program will have a
significant impact on the world oil market, the Iranian economy and
Iran's trading partners. Iran's full return to the global market will
eventually add about a million barrels of oil a day, lowering oil prices
by US$10 per barrel next year, according to the World Bank, which also
expects economic growth in the country to surge to about 5% in 2016 from
3% this year... 'Just as the tightening of sanctions in 2012 led to a
sharp decline in Iran's oil exports and two years of negative growth, we
expect the removal of sanctions to boost exports and revive the economy,'
said Shanta Devarajan, World Bank Chief Economist for the Middle East and
North Africa region. Iran's cost of doing trade will also fall,
increasing not just the volume but the value of its oil trade and non-oil
trade." http://t.uani.com/1L2Hz4t
Reuters:
"Pakistan is in the final stages of negotiating a deal to increase
its electricity imports from Iran tenfold, a Pakistani government
spokesman said Tuesday, part of a push to boost trade if sanctions
relating to Iran's nuclear program are phased out. Pakistan's trade with
Iran, worth $1.3 billion in the financial year 2008-9, plummeted to $217
million dollars in the 2013-4 financial year." http://t.uani.com/1J1zOfN
Human Rights
ICHRI:
"The Rouhani administration should immediately secure the release of
three Iranian-American prisoners, Jason Rezaian, Saeed Abedini, and Amir
Mirzaei Hekmati who are being held on politically motived charges, said
the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran today. 'The Iranian
government wants the world to look the other way while these individuals,
prosecuted under bogus charges and without any semblance of due process,
languish in Iranian prisons,' said Hadi Ghaemi, Executive Director of the
Campaign. 'Rouhani can't have it both ways: if he wants to end Iran's
international pariah status, he should use all his authority to end the
unlawful targeting of these dual nationals.' Under Article 113 of the
Iranian constitution, Iran's president, Hassan Rouhani, has the power to
question the Judiciary on the condition of prisoners and on the
Judiciary's compliance with Iran's own laws guaranteeing due process.
Iranian law also explicitly stipules that the president is responsible
for ensuring the Iranian constitution's enforcement. 'It is long past
time that the Rouhani administration ceases its silence on these
political prisoners and actively works to secure their release,'
continued Ghaemi." http://t.uani.com/1DKtpVT
Opinion &
Analysis
Michael Bloomberg
in Bloomberg: "If you oppose the Iranian nuclear
agreement, you are increasing the chances of war. And if you are a
Democrat who opposes the agreement, you are also risking your political
career. That's the message the White House and some liberal leaders are
sending -- and they ought to stop now, because they are only hurting
their credibility. I have deep reservations about the Iranian nuclear
agreement, but I -- like many Americans -- am still weighing the evidence
for and against it. This is one of the most important debates of our
time, one with huge implications for our future and security and the
stability of the world. Yet instead of attempting to persuade Americans
on the merits, supporters of the deal are resorting to intimidation and
demonization, while also grossly overstating their case. Last week,
President Barack Obama said that it was not a difficult decision to
endorse the agreement. I couldn't disagree more. This is an
extraordinarily difficult decision, and the president's case would be
more compelling if he stopped minimizing the agreement's weaknesses and
exaggerating its benefits. If he believes that the deal 'permanently
prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,' as he said in his speech
at American University last Wednesday, then he should take another look
at the agreement, whose restrictions end suddenly after 15 years, with
some of the constraints on uranium enrichment melting away after just 10.
Overstating the case for the agreement belies the gravity of the issue
and does more to breed distrust than win support. Smearing critics is
even less effective. In his speech, the president suggested that critics
of the deal are the same people who argued for the war in Iraq. The message
wasn't very subtle: Those who oppose the agreement are warmongers. (Of
course, those who voted for the Iraq War resolution in 2002 include
Obama's vice president and secretary of state.) Then he went further,
saying: 'It's those hardliners chanting 'Death to America' who have been
most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican
caucus.' From a president who often complains about hyperpartisanship,
and whose stated aim is to elevate the discourse, the public deserved
something better. Emblematic of all this -- and what has prompted me to
write -- was the treatment of Senator Chuck Schumer. In his thoughtful
statement opposing the deal, Schumer noted that the best course of action
is not clear. Reasonable people can and do disagree. Yet rather than
acknowledging a respectful difference of opinion, the president's
spokesperson and others close to the White House suggested that Schumer's
decision may cost him the opportunity to become the leader of the
Senate's Democratic caucus. What they should have said is: President
Obama signed legislation that gives Congress a voice on any deal with
Iran. This debate is far bigger than partisan politics, and personal
political considerations should play no role in deciding it." http://t.uani.com/1f5uCLD
David Albright in
WashPost: "Chico Marx said: 'Who you gonna believe?
Me or your own eyes?' Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said
over the weekend that my organization, the Institute for Science and
International Security, was spreading lies when we published satellite
imagery that showed renewed, concerning activity at the Parchin military
site near Tehran. This site is linked by Western intelligence and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to past work on nuclear
weapons. But like Chico, instead of acknowledging the concern, the
Iranians chose to deny the visible evidence in commercial satellite
imagery. Iran's comments would be mirthful if the topic were not so
serious. Zarif is also calling U.S. intelligence officials and members of
Congress liars. They are the original source of the information both
about renewed activity at Parchin and concerns about that activity. All
we did was publish satellite imagery showing this activity and restate
the obvious concern. Moreover, this information about renewed activity at
Parchin does not come from opponents of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action negotiated between the United States, five other world powers and
Iran, as Zarif suggested. We are neutral on whether the agreement should
be implemented and have made that position clear for weeks. The U.S.
intelligence community is hardly opposed to the deal. Iran's attempts to
dismiss this concern as the work of the deal's foes also is just wrong.
Concern about Parchin has become more urgent now that there is a debate
raging over whether the IAEA will have adequate access to this site under
the terms of its deal with Iran. It would be irresponsible not to worry
about reports that suggest that Iran could be again sanitizing the site
to thwart environmental sampling that could reveal past nuclear weapons
activities there. This concern is further heightened because Iran has
demanded to do this sampling itself instead of letting the IAEA do it.
Such an arrangement is unprecedented and risky, and will be even more so
if Iran continues to sanitize the site. In the cases of the Iranian
Kalaye Electric site and the North Korean plutonium separation plant at
Yongbyon, the success of sampling that showed undeclared activities
depended on samples being taken at non-obvious locations identified
during previous IAEA visits inside buildings. The IAEA will not be able
to visit Parchin until after the samples are taken, and it remains
doubtful that the inspectors will be able to take additional samples. Some
of this can be written off to Zarif's volatility. At one point during the
negotiations, he yelled so loudly at Secretary of State John F. Kerry
that those outside the room could hear him. He obviously angers easily...
But on Parchin, his words appear to reflect Iranian government
intransigence on its past nuclear weapons program. Its action is an
assault on the integrity and prospects of the nuclear deal. Iran's
reaction shows that it may be drawing a line at Parchin. Resolving the
Parchin issue is central to the IAEA's effort to resolve concerns about
Iran's past work on nuclear weapons by the end of the year, but Parchin
is not the only site and activity involved in this crucial issue. The
IAEA needs to visit other sites and interview a range of scientists and
officials. Instead of allowing this needed access, Iran appears to be
continuing its policy of total denial, stating that the concerns are
merely Western falsifications and fantasies. The United States recently
reasserted that it believes Iran had a nuclear weapons program and stated
that it knows a considerable amount about it. So, if Iran sticks to its
strategy, one can expect an impasse that includes Iran refusing to allow
the IAEA the access it needs to sites and scientists within the coming months.
U.S. officials have stated that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
requires Iran to address concerns about its past work on nuclear weapons
prior to the lifting of sanctions. However, Iran may argue otherwise, and
one could easily conclude that its recent actions are the start of such a
reinterpretation of the agreement. The United States and Congress should
clearly and publicly confirm, and Congress should support with
legislation, that if Iran does not address the IAEA's concerns about the
past military dimensions of its nuclear programs, U.S. sanctions will not
be lifted. To do otherwise is to make a mockery of the nuclear
deal." http://t.uani.com/1N6VnNT
Bret Stephens in
WSJ: "In a withering 1957 review of Ayn Rand's
'Atlas Shrugged' for National Review, Whittaker Chambers wrote that he
could 'recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was
so implacably sustained.' Of the author's mentality, he observed: 'It
supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance
to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be
merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation
so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be
willfully wicked.' Which brings me to Barack Obama and his case for the
Iran nuclear deal. Who is it, according to the president, who supports
the deal? It is, he said in his speech last week at American University,
the unanimous U.N. Security Council, the majority of 'arms control and
non-proliferation experts,' 'over 100 former ambassadors' and 'every
nation in the world that has commented publicly'-with one lone exception.
In sum, the forces of good, the children of light, the 99%. And who's
against the deal? A 'virulent' majority of Republicans. Lobbyists funding
a multimillion-dollar advertising effort to oppose the deal. Partisans
and pundits. Warmongers. The people who were wrong about Iraq.
Hard-liners in Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. And one stiff-necked
nation, Israel, which doesn't have the wit to see how terrific this deal
is for them. In other words, fools or knaves, the benighted or the
willfully wicked, fighting a deal whose intrinsic benefits should be as
self-evident as Bran Flakes or a good night's rest. Much has now been written
on the merits and demerits of the Iran deal. Not enough has been said
about the bald certitude of its principal sponsor, or the naked
condescending disdain with which he treats his opponents. Mr. Obama has
the swagger of a man who never seems to have encountered a contrary point
of view he respected, or come to grips with the limits of his own
intelligence, or figured out that facile arguments tend to be weak ones,
if for no other reason than that the world is a complicated place,
information is never complete and truth is rarely more than partial.
'Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth,' says Mike
Tyson, who knows whereof he speaks. Mr. Obama talks about his Iran deal
the way Howard Cosell talked about a fight. One might have thought that,
by now, the president and his advisers would be chastened by experience.
Al Qaeda is 'on a path to defeat' (2012). Bashar Assad's 'days are
numbered' (2011). 'If you like your current insurance, you can keep that
insurance. Period, end of story' (2009). Russia and the U.S. 'are not
simply resetting our relationship but also broadening it' (2010). Yemen
is an example of a counterterrorist strategy 'we have successfully
pursued . . . for years' (2014). And so on-a record of prediction as
striking for the boldness of its initial claims as it is for the
consistency of its failures. Doesn't Mr. Obama get this? Haven't his
advisers figured out that they have a credibility issue? Apparently not.
Apparently, the president figures that the politics work better when he
projects Olympian confidence about his diplomacy than when he
acknowledges some measure of uncertainty. Apparently, he thinks it's
wiser to tar opponents of the deal as partisans or idiots or paid stooges
than to engage them as sincere, thoughtful people who came to their own
conclusions. Apparently, he thinks there's nothing amiss in suggesting
that the only thing standing between the present moment and the broad,
sunlit uplands of a denuclearized Iran is the Jewish state and its
warmongering Beltway lobbyists... It also says something about the
weakness of his deal. Right behind Mr. Obama's salesmanship is a
battalion of apologists who admit that the deal is a stinker but the
realistic alternatives may be worse-particularly when there's no hope of
Mr. Obama's punishing Iran should it sprint toward a bomb in the wake of
the deal's collapse." http://t.uani.com/1MhXCgx
UANI Advisory
Board Member Olli Heinonen in the Washington Examiner:
"Under the new environment to promote a more rigorous safeguards
approach and getting states to sign on to the additional protocol, the
IAEA faced its next challenge in 2002 with the revelation of Iran's
clandestine enrichment program, and a year later, with Libya's enrichment
program. As with the case of Iraq, these countries had mainly taken
advantage of processing undeclared nuclear materials at unreported
locations. The new element here was the extensive use of clandestine
nuclear markets to obtain enrichment technology and equipment.
Information that emerged on Iran's covert nuclear program, however, was
not entirely bolts out of the blue. There had been a number of
indications on possible unreported activities in Iran, which the IAEA had
tried to address through attempted 'transparency' visits, but ultimately
did not dig deep enough into the matter. On July 14 this year, Iran and
six world powers concluded a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which is
planned to contain Iran's current nuclear program with specific
provisions put in place that trade sanctions relief with a reduction in
Iran's centrifuges and stockpiles that puts it at least a year away from
possessing fissile material for one nuclear bomb. The plan also includes,
inter alia, IAEA's investigations into the possible military dimensions
of Iran's nuclear program, and verification to ensure that Iran has
submitted all nuclear materials and activities under the IAEA
safeguards... The IAEA has also not been able to obtain satisfactory
clarifications regarding its concerns on possible military dimensions of
Iran's nuclear program. Iran, in particular, followed the example of
North Korea by instead furthering its nuclear capabilities and ignoring
the U.N. Security Council's resolutions... What does the nuclear
non-proliferation future look like in a changing world? The nuclear
technology acquisitions by Syria, Libya, North Korea and Iran have
demonstrated that one can achieve nuclear weapons capability with low
technology enrichment or reactors. It also shows that proliferation today
can be understood not as the capacity to amass a huge nuclear arsenal,
but at the very least seeking to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities or
towards amassing a small number of nuclear weapons... North Korea and
Iran have brought to the table again the question of nuclear threshold
states, where a state by having reprocessing or enrichment capacity can
break out in a short period of time and manufacture nuclear weapons. With
much of the technologies being open and available, dual-use equipment and
raw materials traded for other purposes achieving this threshold capacity
is lower than ever since the 1960s. It appears that in coming decades,
with regional tensions remaining, we are going to live in a world where
nuclear weapon stocks increase and threshold states are born in less stable
regions." http://t.uani.com/1MmiK6P
Robert Satloff in
WINEP: "Advocates of the agreement have suggested
that a successful congressional resolution of disapproval would kill the
deal. They have argued that Iran would lose faith in America's commitment
to the agreement, pull out, and ramp up its enrichment program to new
levels, and that the Europeans would cry foul at America's lack of fair
play and end sanctions of their own accord. Advocates of the accord also
suggest that without agreed limits on its nuclear program, Iran would
sooner or later trigger either American or Israeli military action, which
would unleash regional war. There are strong arguments why each of these
predictions is misplaced. First, Iran is unlikely to respond to
congressional disapproval by enriching uranium with reckless abandon and
thereby validating the skeptics who never trusted its commitment to a
solely peaceful nuclear program. After Tehran has painstakingly worked
for two decades both to advance a program that is on the verge of
attaining breathtaking international legitimacy and to end
nuclear-related sanctions, it would make little sense to chuck those
achievements in a state of pique. To the contrary, Iran is far more
likely to fulfill its core requirements so as to earn the termination of
UN and EU sanctions that would come with IAEA certification. Along the
way, Tehran would note that America, not the Islamic Republic, was
isolated because of its intransigence. For its part, Europe is unlikely
to respond to a vote of disapproval by unilaterally terminating its
sanctions. More likely, it would to want to see its negotiating position
validated by following the agreement's terms -- that is, waiting until
Iran fulfills its core requirements before rewarding it with sanctions
relief. European leaders -- and certainly European businesses -- would
chafe under the continued application of U.S. nuclear-related sanctions.
In the 1990s, faced with Iran sanctions that affected European business,
EU governments complained about extraterritorial application of U.S. law
and successfully pressured the Clinton administration to suspend the
application of such sanctions. Soon after President Clinton signed the
Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) into law, his administration reached
a formal agreement with the EU not to enforce it against European
companies. Over the next decade, much to Congress's frustration, neither
the Clinton nor the Bush administration determined that a single EU firm
violated ILSA, claiming they had to investigate further on matters openly
proclaimed by the companies involved. Despite increasingly tough
congressional requirements about reporting on the progress of those
investigations, including provisions adopted 100-0 by the Senate, both
administrations simply stalled. Today, the Europeans are likely to pursue
a similar approach, so the outcome will rest on the Obama
administration's response. If the administration maintains effective
enforcement of its nuclear-related sanctions, along with enforcement of
the primary and secondary aspects of the nonnuclear sanctions that will
be unaffected by the Iran deal, European business leaders are ultimately
unlikely to value the Iranian market more than the U.S. market, and much
of the existing sanctions regime would stay in place. In that scenario,
the outcome would probably be murky -- the global sanctions regime would
be less effective than it is today but would still have significant bite.
It would collapse only if the United States failed to enforce its own
sanctions. Yet it is difficult to see a scenario in which the threat of
war would be substantially higher than it is today." http://t.uani.com/1JSHOAv
|
|
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