|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
AFP:
"The fate of Iran's nuclear deal with world powers is still undecided
but it will not leave the country vulnerable to US influence, supreme
leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Monday. Khamenei, the country's highest
authority, said in a statement quoted on his website that Tehran would
block any US attempt to influence Iran despite the historic accord. 'They
think that through this agreement -- the fate of which is not clear as no
one knows if it will be approved here or in America -- they could find a
way to intrude into the country,' Khamenei said. 'We have closed such a
path and will decisively shut it. We'll allow neither economic nor
political nor cultural intrusion by the United States.' ... Khamenei,
quoted as speaking to members of the Islamic Radio and Television Union in
Tehran, also accused the United States of trying to 'infiltrate' the Middle
East. 'They seek the disintegration of Syria and Iraq, (but) with God's
help it will not happen,' he said... Khamenei also stressed his support for
all forces fighting Israel, the Islamic republic's arch-foe. 'Iran defends
the resistance in the region, including the Palestinian resistance, and
provides support for anyone who fights Israel and strikes the Zionist
regime,' he said." http://t.uani.com/1NAQwT2
WashPost:
"U.N. human rights experts expressed grave concern Friday about Iran's
continued detention of Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian and
called on authorities in Tehran to release him immediately. 'The arrest,
detention and secret trial of Mr. Rezaian violate his rights and intimidate
all those working in the media in Iran,' said David Kaye, the U.N. special
rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression. 'His continued detention
violates basic rules that not only aim to protect journalists, bloggers,
human rights activists and others, but to guarantee everyone's right to
information.' Two other U.N. human rights experts, including the head of
the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, backed calls for Rezaian's
release... Martin Baron, executive editor of The Post, said in a statement
that the independent U.N. experts have 'sounded a powerful call for the
government of Iran to uphold its international legal obligations in a case
that has been anything but just.'" http://t.uani.com/1PhnPLp
WSJ:
"In a blow to President Barack Obama's attempt to build bipartisan
support for his Iran nuclear agreement, a key Republican who backed the
initial negotiations said he would vote against the deal. Sen. Jeff Flake
of Arizona, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who was
widely seen as the most likely Republican to vote for any agreement with
Tehran, said Saturday he wouldn't back the pact when Congress votes on it
next month. 'I cannot vote in support of this deal,' Mr. Flake said in a statement.
He said the deal 'does contain benefits' in limiting Iran's ability to
produce a nuclear weapon for a period of time at already known nuclear
facilities. 'But these benefits are outweighed by severe limitations the
[proposed agreement] places on Congress and future administrations in
responding to Iran's nonnuclear behavior in the region,' he said. Mr. Obama
has undertaken a major effort to court congressional support, with Mr.
Flake being the top GOP target in the Senate... 'Hoping that Iran's nuclear
ambitions might change after a 15-year sabbatical might be a bet worth
making,' he said. 'Believing that Iran's regional behavior will change
tomorrow-while giving up tools to deter or modify such behavior-is
not.'" http://t.uani.com/1hiOygj
Nuclear Program
& Agreement
WSJ:
"Iran has submitted documents and material about its past nuclear work
on time, the United Nations' nuclear oversight agency said Saturday, but it
provided no assessment of how much clarity the new information shed on
Tehran's past activities. In a one-sentence statement, the International
Atomic Energy Agency said Iran had submitted its 'explanation in writing
and related documents' on Saturday, the deadline for doing so... Under an
agreement struck last month between Iran and the IAEA, Iran had to provide
explanations of its past work by Saturday, and the agency would then have a
month to analyze the information. The two sides will then hold discussions
in Tehran in September and October to follow up on remaining questions or concerns.
The IAEA has declined to make public most of the specifics of its July 14
agreement with Iran, including exactly what information it is seeking and
how it will go about clarifying weaponization work Iran is alleged to have
done at its Parchin nuclear site... There have been other signs in recent
weeks that the IAEA may not receive as much transparency as it hoped to
from Iran. In his interview with the Journal, Mr. Amano said Iran had so
far refused to allow U.N. inspectors to interview key scientists and
military officers as part of its probe." http://t.uani.com/1gQBuxJ
AP:
"Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is opposed to a landmark
nuclear deal reached with world powers, a prominent hard-liner claimed
Saturday. Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the daily newspaper Kayhan and a
representative of Khamenei, made the comments in an editorial Saturday. It
was the first time someone publicly claimed where Khamenei, who has final
say on all state matters, stands on the deal. Khamenei has not publicly
approved or disapproved of the deal. However, he has repeatedly offered
words of support for Iran's nuclear negotiators. Moderates believe the deal
would have never been reached without Khamenei's private approval. Iran's
parliament and the Supreme National Security Council will consider the
agreement in the coming days. The deal calls for limiting Iran's nuclear
program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions. Shariatmadari said in
the editorial that many parts of the deal threaten Iran's independence,
security and 'the sacred system of the Islamic republic of Iran' and would
be 'disastrous' if implemented." http://t.uani.com/1hiM0P7
Tasnim (Iran):
"Secretary-General of World Assembly of Islamic Awakening Ali Akbar
Velayati praised the recent conclusion of nuclear talks between Iran and
six world powers, saying that with the deal, Tehran has more strength to
support its friends in the Middle East region. Speaking at the
opening ceremony of the 6th gathering of General Assembly of Ahl-ul-Bayt
World Assembly here in Tehran on Saturday morning, Velayati, who is also
the head of the Strategic Research Center of Iran's Expediency Council,
stressed the need for the consolidation of the anti-Israeli Resistance
Front in the region. 'The Islamic Republic of Iran will always support the
current (Resistance Front) and of course, with the nuclear agreement, it
will have more power to side with its friends in the region,' he
noted." http://t.uani.com/1Krp9aW
Press TV (Iran):
"A senior Iranian official says the main duty of the resistance axis
in the region is to block the influence of the United States, warning of
the US plots to sow discord among Muslim countries. Ali Akbar Velayati, a
top adviser to Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei,
made the remarks during an address to the opening ceremony of the eighth
General Assembly of Islamic Radio and Television Union in the Iranian
capital, Tehran, on Sunday. The Iranian official said the duty of the
resistance axis, including countries such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon,
and Palestine 'is not only to fight against the dominance of foreigners in
their countries,' but also to cut the influence of the US in the region.
Velayati also stated that Washington's plot is to instigate conflict among
different groups and sects in Muslim countries, calling for a united front
against this plot. He further noted that mercenaries are currently fighting
in Muslim countries to materialize the goals of the United States, adding
that people in Iraq, Syria and other Muslim countries will stand against
those mercenaries... He noted that the US failed in its military aggression
against Afghanistan and Iraq, adding that Washington and its allies now
plan to partition Syria. 'Syria is the golden ring of resistance against
the Zionists,' the Iranian official said, adding that the US and its allies
have not succeeded in achieving their goals in the Arab country because of
the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad and the resistance of the
Syrian nation." http://t.uani.com/1K1PKPX
Congressional Vote
Fox News:
"The Iran nuclear agreement goes to Congress in September. If it
were up to American voters, they would reject it -- with a large majority
saying Iran wouldn't abide by the agreement anyway... The latest Fox News
national poll asks voters to imagine being a lawmaker and casting a vote on
the deal: 31 percent would approve it, while nearly twice as many, 58
percent, would reject it... In an August 5 speech, President Obama said if
lawmakers vote down the deal, the agreement will fall apart and war will
come 'soon.' Even so, only half of Democrats would approve the deal (50
percent). More than a third would vote it down (35 percent). Most
Republicans (83 percent) and a majority of independents (60 percent) would reject
it. One reason to oppose any deal is if you think the other side won't keep
the bargain -- and that's certainly the case here: Three-quarters of voters
say Iran cannot be trusted to honor the agreement (75 percent). That
includes almost all Republicans (93 percent), most independents (80
percent) and a majority of Democrats (59 percent)." http://t.uani.com/1Lf3Iwz
Times of Israel:
"Israel's ambassador to the United States said in a television
interview aired Saturday that Jerusalem was not in any way eager to go up
against Washington on the contentious Iranian nuclear agreement reached
last month, but felt it had no choice. 'There's no question that this is
the most important relationship in the world, and we are not eager in any
way to have to be at odds on the most important policy priority of the
president of the United States. That's a big deal,' Ron Dermer told CNN's
Fareed Zakaria. 'But... the survival of the state of Israel is also a big
deal, and we believe that this deal threatens the survival of Israel,'
Dermer said. The Israeli envoy said that Israel has been arguing against
the deal to US President Barack Obama for a long time, and was now aiming
to make its case with US congressmen and senators 'who will ultimately
decide the fate of this deal.' 'We are telling them that this is a bad deal
that endangers Israel's security,' Dermer said." http://t.uani.com/1hHKSVg
AP:
"The September vote on the Iran nuclear deal is billed as a titanic
standoff between President Barack Obama and Congress. Yet even if lawmakers
reject the agreement, it's not game over for the White House. A
congressional vote of disapproval would not prevent Obama from acting on
his own to start putting the accord in place. While he probably would take
some heavy criticism, this course would let him add the foreign policy
breakthrough to his second-term list of accomplishments. Obama doesn't need
a congressional OK to give Iran most of the billions of dollars in relief
from economic sanctions that it would get under the agreement, as long as
Tehran honors its commitments to curb its nuclear program - at least for
now. 'A resolution to disapprove the Iran agreement may have substantial
political reverberations, but limited practical impact,' says Robert
Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy. 'It would not override President Obama's authority to enter into
the agreement.'" http://t.uani.com/1MtJcKb
The Hill:
"Rev. Al Sharpton will push America's black churches to lobby in favor
of the Iran nuclear deal, a new report says. Sharpton is launching his push
backing President Obama's pact with Tehran this weekend, according to The
Huffington Post. 'I am calling on ministers in black churches nationwide to
go to their pulpits Sunday and have their parishioners call their senators
and congressmen to vote yes on the Iran nuclear plan,' he said Friday. 'We
have a disproportionate interest, being that if there is a war, our
community is always disproportionately part of the armed services, and that
a lot of the debate is by people who will not have family members who will
be at risk,' Sharpton added... Sharpton also noted Friday that he has
already contacted Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.)
and other New York-area Democrats about backing the accord." http://t.uani.com/1hiO7CA
The Hill:
"Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, whose job was seen as in jeopardy
at the beginning of the year, has emerged as the chief advocate for
President Obama's Iran deal within the Senate Democratic caucus. The
Illinois Democrat has set up private meetings between Democratic senators
and senior administration officials and has put together a 10-person whip
team to address colleagues' concerns over the agreement. He is the only
member of the senior Democratic leadership pushing for the deal, as
Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Democratic Conference Secretary
Patty Murray (D-Wash.) remain undecided while Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.),
the third-ranking member of the leadership, is opposed. 'I support it and I
approached the individual members of the caucus after it was announced and
told them I wanted them to take their time, read it, reach a decision and
let me know,' Durbin said in an interview, describing it as a 'very
low-key, no pressure approach.' Democratic senators and aides say Durbin
gave the deal a shot of momentum last week by organizing a meeting with
ambassadors from the world powers - known as the P5+1 - involved in the
negotiations." http://t.uani.com/1WyS2v7
Sanctions Relief
Reuters:
"International oil services companies are scrambling to win contracts
worth tens of billions to repair and modernize Iran's oil refineries once
sanctions are removed, with officials even laying on bus tours for visiting
foreign executives. Officials from Iran's oil refining company NIORDC, its
National Petrochemical Company and the privately owned Persian Oil and Gas
are holding talks with services firms to clinch projects to repair Iran's
derelict refining and petrochemical sector. Iran badly needs to complete
modernization plans that ground to a halt after sanctions hit the country
five years ago over its nuclear program. The projects are worth at least
$100 billion, according to sources close to firms that have held talks in
Iran... 'There is also great potential in the modernization of existing
plants for extraction and processing of raw materials and the
infrastructure sector,' Wolfgang Büchele, Chief Executive Officer of German
gas and engineering company Linde, told Der Spiegel magazine after visiting
Tehran as part of a German delegation led by Minister of Economic Affairs
Sigmar Gabriel last month. Oil services companies that had been active in
building refineries in Iran prior to the sanctions, including Australia's
WorleyParsons, France's Technip and Axens, South Korea's Daelim and China's
Sinopec Engineering were all interested in resuming business in the
country, the sources said. The companies declined to discuss whether they
are meeting in Iran." http://t.uani.com/1DXXp0Y
Reuters:
"Iran expects to increase petrochemical exports by up to a quarter by
the end of 2016 after sanctions are lifted, a senior official was quoted as
saying on Saturday... 'We expect our exports of petrochemical products to
increase by 20 to 25 percent in a short time, between a year and a year and
a half,' Mehdi Sharifi Niknafs, managing director of the Iran Petrochemical
Commercial Company, was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA. 'When
banking, insurance and shipping restrictions are lifted, it will become
easier to export and the costs will decrease,' he added. Iran, one of the
world's top oil and gas producers, exported around $14 billion of
petrochemical products in 2014, the Fars news agency reported in April,
down from more than $18 billion in 2011." http://t.uani.com/1Jc1vyl
Terrorism
Haaretz:
"Though hundreds of Hezbollah militants are operating in the Golan
Heights, Iran is behind recent attempts recent to carry out terror attack
against Israel, a senior IDF officer said in a briefing with reporters on
Sunday. The officer, who serves in the Golan division, said an example of
Iranian involvement was apparent last April, when explosive devices were
planted at three spots near the Su'heita outpost, on the border between
Israel and Syria. An Israel Air Force aircraft in April struck a militant
cell that was trying to place the explosives on the border while they were
in the process of placing the charges.
'It's clear that Iran is behind all of the terror attacks here (in the
Golan) in the past two years,' the officer said. 'The Iranians are using
the border - they establish units - whether it's [Imad] Mughniyeh, [Samir]
Kuntar, and more - to carry out [the attacks].' He added that the Iranian
involvement manifests itself in Iranian advisers, who according to foreign
reports are based in Syria, as well as in the transferring of funds, giving
instructions and providing training." http://t.uani.com/1hiHSyJ
Reuters:
"A huge arms cache seized in Kuwait last week was smuggled into the
country from Iran, two Kuwaiti newspapers reported on Sunday. The Interior
Ministry said on Thursday authorities had found ammunition, explosives,
weapons and grenades in holes dug under houses in an area near the Iraqi
border. Three men who owned the houses were detained. Al-Anba newspaper
reported at the time that the weapons had been smuggled across the border
from Iraq for use by members of an Iranian-backed Hezbollah cell. But
al-Rai and al-Qabas dailies, citing unnamed sources, reported on Sunday
that the weapons had been brought into Kuwait by sea from Iran. They quoted
the sources as saying that the new information had come from confessions
made by the detainees during interrogation... 'The suspects have disclosed
that there is a direct Iranian line in supplying weapons to Kuwait by sea,'
al-Rai said." http://t.uani.com/1JcUa5K
Extremism
Free Beacon:
"An entity controlled by the Iranian government has released an
'anti-Zionist' video game entitled 'Missile Strike,' in which players are
taught how to launch Iranian missile strikes on Israeli cities, according
to an official report by the CIA's Open Source Center (OSC) obtained by the
Washington Free Beacon. The anti-Israel video game was widely released for
cellphones by Iran's state-controlled Fars News Agency, which is closely
aligned with the country's military apparatus. The game was publicly
released just three days before the signing of a nuclear accord with the
United States and world powers... The anti-Israel game is the 'latest in a
series of politically inspired Iranian video games that advance a hardline
narrative,' OSC wrote in the brief, which is unclassified but marked for
official use only. 'These games appear to be an attempt by the Iranian
regime to spread its political message among Iranian youth.' Fars itself
has stated 'that the 'anti-Zionist' game, titled 'Missile Strike,' allows
users to launch Iranian Zelzal, Zolfaqer, or Sijal missiles at large
Israeli cities, including Haifa and Tel Aviv,' according to OSC's
analysis." http://t.uani.com/1UOiH5h
Human Rights
AFP:
"Jailed Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian's trial in Iran on
spying charges has yet to end, Tehran's justice department chief said
Sunday, although his lawyer had said a verdict was imminent. Lawyer Leila
Ahsan said last Monday that the secretive trial had had its final session
and a verdict would follow 'within a week', in line with legal procedure in
Iran. But the head of Tehran's justice department, Gholamhossein Esmaili,
said Sunday that the court had yet to reach a decision. 'The end of the proceedings
in the file of Jason Rezaian has yet to be announced. The verdict has yet
to be reached,' Esmaili was quoted as saying by the official ISNA news
agency. 'The judge sets the date of the verdict.' 'I think that the verdict
will be announced by the end of this week or the next,' ISNA reported
Iranian judiciary spokesman Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejeie told a later press
conference." http://t.uani.com/1TOGfKg
Opinion &
Analysis
UANI Chairman Sen.
Joseph Lieberman in WashPost: "As debate intensifies
over the nuclear agreement reached with Iran, the Obama administration has
sought to deflect criticism by arguing that there is no alternative to the
current framework, no matter what its flaws, and that its rejection by
Congress is guaranteed to produce catastrophe - isolating the United States
from its allies and destroying any prospect for a diplomatic settlement. A
vote against its preferred policy, the administration has argued (not for
the first time), is a vote for war. The administration has used these same
arguments before to try to stop Congress from imposing economic sanctions
on Iran. Not only did the predictions of catastrophe fail to deter Congress
from moving ahead but also, when the sanctions were adopted, the doomsday
forecasts were proven wrong - just as the current predictions will be. And
when the scare tactics failed and the vote count in Congress started to
turn heavily against its position, the White House changed course - just as
it can and should now. I was a member of the Senate when, between 2009 and
2012, Congress developed a series of bills that dramatically increased
pressure on Tehran for its illicit nuclear activities, including adopting a
measure in late 2011 that effectively banned Iran from selling oil - its
economic lifeblood - on international markets. In every case, senior Obama
administration officials worked to block congressional efforts, warning
that they were unnecessary, counterproductive and even dangerous. Much like
today, the White House repeatedly argued that sanctions would isolate the
United States and alienate our allies whose help we needed. In the case of
the oil ban, a Cabinet member bluntly told members that adopting the
measure risked torpedoing the global economic recovery. These predictions
proved false. In fact, it was only because of the sanctions adopted by
Congress, and ultimately signed by President Obama, that sufficient
economic pressure was put on the Iranian government that its leaders came
to the negotiating table - a truth the Obama administration now accepts and
asserts. Our allies and partners did not always welcome new restrictions on
doing business in Tehran, but in the end, they decided it was more
important to do business in the United States. It is important for members
of Congress deciding how to vote on the current proposal to consider this
history because it reminds us of the administration's past misguided
efforts to stop, slow or weaken sanctions bills. Equally important, recent
legislative history tells us that as bipartisan congressional support for
these bills began to snowball, the White House shifted its position. At
first, members of Congress - particularly Democrats - were warned not to do
anything. But as the administration began to see the votes slipping from
its grip, it changed tack and started negotiating the timing and scope of
the prospective new law... If a bipartisan supermajority does in fact begin
to cohere in criticism of the undeniable loopholes and inadequacies of the
agreement, it is likely the administration will adjust its position.
Provisions that today are impossible to change will become subject to
renegotiation and clarification. The best chance for a better deal, in
other words, is overwhelming bipartisan pressure from Capitol Hill about
the need for one, rather than acquiescencing to the Obama administration's
claim that this is the best agreement possible because Iran will go no
further. That conclusion overlooks two truths: First, the Iranians are
historically capable of adjusting positions they have claimed were immovable
to new political realities, and, second, Iran, because of its depleted
economy, needs an agreement much more than we do. Congress has the power
now to act on these two realities... Not so long ago, everyone agreed that
no deal with Iran was better than a bad deal. Now, the administration has
changed the standard to whether it is possible to get a better deal than
the flawed one it got in Vienna. History suggests it is - but we will never
know unless a bipartisan super-majority comes together to demand it." http://t.uani.com/1Jms75X
WashPost Editorial:
"Americans are asking the extent to which Iran can be trusted - in its
arms control commitments, its regional behavior and its treatment of
foreign investors. One way to answer that question is to examine the extent
to which Iran's regime obeys its own laws, on which subject several United
Nations human rights experts had some relevant things to say on Friday.
They were examining the unjust incarceration of Post reporter Jason
Rezaian, and their conclusions were stark. 'He has suffered unlawful
treatment during his year-long incarceration,' said Seong-Phil Hong, who
heads the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Mr. Rezaian has been
held in Tehran's infamous Evin prison since his arrest on July 22, 2014.
This alone would appear to violate Iranian law, which says no suspect may
be held for longer than a year unless accused of murder. The charges
against Mr. Rezaian have never been made public, but according to his
lawyer they do not include homicide. Apparently they center instead on what
the State Department has called 'patently absurd' allegations of espionage
and aiding a hostile government, though it's hard to know: His 'trial' has
been conducted in secret, with not even his relatives allowed to attend,
and no live witnesses or substantial evidence have been presented. 'Mr.
Rezaian seems to have been detained for the simple fact of having exercised
his rights to freedom of expression, association and political
participation,' Mr. Hong said. 'His rights to legal counsel of his choice
and to due process of law seem to have been forgotten.' A second U.N.
expert, David Kaye, the U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and
expression, also sharply criticized Iran's handling of the Rezaian case. 'The
arrest, detention and secret trial of Mr. Rezaian violate his rights and
intimidate all those working in the media in Iran,' said Mr. Kaye. 'His
continued detention violates basic rules that not only aim to protect
journalists, bloggers, human rights activists and others but to guarantee
everyone's right to information.' Both experts, along with Ahmed Shaheed,
the U.N. special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, urged
Mr. Rezaian's prompt release, along with that of 'all those exercising
their rights to expression who have been arbitrarily arrested, detained and
prosecuted.' Indeed, it is the highly arbitrary treatment of Mr. Rezaian
and the disregard of the law that ought to concern everyone weighing the
proper contours for future relations with Iran. Conversely, Iranian
authorities, who reportedly may issue a verdict in the Rezaian case as
early as Monday, ought to keep in mind how anything but immediate release
and exoneration will affect their standing in the world." http://t.uani.com/1WyQKjF
Hamid Yazdan Panah
in Reuters: "The nuclear deal between Iran, the United
States and other major world players has garnered significant praise and
fanfare. The agreement has been hailed as a victory for peace and a turning
point for Iran. Some have even claimed that the agreement will usher in a
new era of moderation and the development of Iranian civil society. The
facts on the ground paint a very different picture, especially as they
relate to human rights. Currently, the Iranian regime leads the world in
per capita executions and it continues to escalate the rate of executions
and mass repression. Since the election of President Hassan Rouhani in
2013, all talk of the opposition movement and human rights has been swept
under the rug while human rights reports from inside the country confirm
the true nature of this regime. Earlier this year a report by UN Special
Rapporteur on Human Rights Ahmad Shaheed noted that 'the overall situation
has worsened' with respect to human rights. Just weeks after signing the
'historic' deal and more than eight months after signing an interim
agreement, Iran is in the midst of what Amnesty International has referred
to as an 'unprecedented spike' in executions. Currently, Iran's new
'moderate' administration is on pace to hit a new 12-year high in
executions. And Amnesty International has noted that while the regime
officially claims that only 246 executions have taken place in 2015, this
number is closer to 700 in reality. Said Boumedouha, Deputy Middle East
Director at Amnesty International, has decried Iran's 'theatre of cruelty,'
stating; 'Iran's staggering execution toll for the first half of this year
paints a sinister picture of the machinery of the State carrying out
premeditated, judicially-sanctioned killings on a mass scale.' Dissidents
and human rights groups have noted that many executions in Iran occur with
little or no due process. Trials that do take place are often deeply
politicized and flawed, prisoners are often not allowed access to legal
counsel, and denied the procedural remedies of appeal. Political prisoners
who are sentenced to death usually see their fates sealed in court
proceedings that occur in a matter of minutes. The mass killings not only
take human lives, but they have also traumatized and terrorized a
population. Public executions are commonplace in Iran and the horrific
spectacle is a constant reminder to those who dare defy this regime...
Those who claim that a nuclear deal with Iran presents hope for human
rights never identify a mechanism through which this supposed change will
occur. Unfortunately for the Iranian people, the nuclear agreement has not
only lifted what little international pressure there was on the regime, it
has also led to premature predictions of change in Iran. As a result,
Iranian dissidents are further marginalized, and the world continues to
avert its eyes from Iran's policy of death." http://t.uani.com/1Krv4gi
|
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment