|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
WSJ:
"Capitol Hill opponents of the landmark Iranian nuclear accord are
devising a Plan B to ratchet up pressure on Iran as President Barack
Obama moves closer to locking up the support needed to implement the
deal... One focus is expected to be the 20-year-old Iran Sanctions Act,
which expires at the end of 2016. The law prohibits investments of more
than $20 million by U.S. or foreign firms in much of Iran's energy
industry. Sens. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) and Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) are
pushing a bill to extend the law for an additional decade. They have said
such sanctions must be reauthorized to ensure that Iran can be punished
if it cheats on the nuclear deal or commits other violations. Sen. Marco
Rubio (R., Fla.), a presidential candidate, and other Republican
lawmakers are also drafting bills to impose new sanctions on the
Revolutionary Guards, or IRGC. 'I'm trying to make sure Americans aren't
blown up, we're trying to prevent the IRGC and the Quds Force from their
external terror plots,' said Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.). U.S. officials
believe the IRGC is the single most dominant entity in the Iranian
economy, with vast holdings in real estate and construction,
telecommunications and energy. Maintaining, or increasing, sanctions on
the unit could stave off a flood of new investment into Iran after the
nuclear agreement goes into place." http://t.uani.com/1hOXR82
The Hill:
"Republicans intend to hammer Senate Democrats next month if they do
not allow an up-or-down vote on a measure disapproving President Obama's
nuclear deal with Iran. Democrats appear close to having enough support
for the deal to bottle up the disapproval measure with procedural
motions. If Republicans vote in a united bloc, they would need the
support of six Democrats to break a filibuster, but only two Democrats
have broken rank so far. If the resolution is filibustered, it would be a
major victory for the White House, which wouldn't have to use President
Obama's veto pen to protect the Iran deal. Opponents of the agreement,
however, believe Senate Democrats will pay a political cost. 'Democrats
will be setting themselves up for a further political hit if they deny
the people the opportunity - the people meaning members of Congress - to
vote on it,' said Allen Roth, the president of the hawkish Secure America
Now, which is staunchly opposed to the agreement. 'I think it'll be
handing a political gift to the Republicans.' Republicans have already
begun to make their case." http://t.uani.com/1hP7zas
AFP:
"A senior Kuwaiti lawmaker on Sunday described Iran as the 'true
enemy' of Sunni-ruled Gulf Arab states, in a sign of growing tensions
with the Shiite power. 'It has become clear to all that Iran is an enemy
plotting to swallow up our states and resources and is the true enemy of
the region,' Hamad al-Harashani, the head of the Kuwaiti parliament's
foreign relations committee, said in a statement. It was the strongest
Kuwaiti criticism in years of Iran, with which Kuwait has traditionally
had better ties than its fellow Gulf Arab states. Harashani singled out
an apparent bomb attack Friday in Bahrain as 'yet further evidence of
Iran's aggression' in the region... 'Iran is seeking to spread chaos and
undermine the ruling regimes' in the region, Harashani said, calling on
Gulf states to boost security coordination. Kuwait and Iran were on
relatively good terms for years until the Gulf state this month broke up
a 'terrorist cell' and seized large quantities of weapons and explosives.
Local media reported that the cell belonged to pro-Iranian Lebanese Shiite
militia Hezbollah." http://t.uani.com/1Q4kSip
Nuclear Program
& Agreement
Reuters:
"Iran's military capability has not been affected by its nuclear
deal last month with six world powers, President Hassan Rouhani said on
Saturday, moving to reassure hardliners that the deal was no sign of
Iranian weakness. 'With regards to our defensive capability, we did not
and will not accept any limitations,' Rouhani said at a press conference
carried on live television. 'We will do whatever we need to do to defend
our country, whether with missiles or other methods.' Last week, Iran
unveiled a new surface-to-surface missile it said could strike targets
with pinpoint accuracy within a range of 500 km (310 miles), a move
likely to worry Tehran's regional rivals." http://t.uani.com/1KzzZA8
AP:
"President Hassan Rouhani said Saturday he opposes a parliamentary
vote on the landmark nuclear deal reached with world powers because terms
of the agreement would turn into legal obligations if passed by
lawmakers. Rouhani told a news conference that the deal was a political
understanding reached with the five permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council and Germany, not a pact requiring parliamentary
approval. The deal also says Iran would implement the terms voluntarily,
he said... 'If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and
passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government .
it will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to
sign it,' Rouhani said. 'Why should we place an unnecessary legal
restriction on the Iranian people?'" http://t.uani.com/1X6SBwp
Congressional Vote
Politico:
"Critics of the Iran deal believed the August congressional recess
was their best chance to scuttle the nuclear accord, as wavering lawmakers
returned home to angry protesters and a barrage of TV ads. The longer the
deal hung out there, they figured, the worse it would be for President
Barack Obama. Instead, the monthlong break has been a major bust...
Opponents are baffled that only 14 House Democrats and two Senate
Democrats have sided with them. The polls are getting worse, Iranian
leaders keep making impolitic comments and TV ads continue to hammer
uncommitted lawmakers. What aren't these Democrats seeing, they wonder?
... 'There's a very strange disconnect now, which grows larger as every
day goes by, between the way American people feel about the Iran
agreement and the way members of Congress seem to feel,' said Lieberman,
an independent who caucused with the Democrats and is now an architect of
several big-dollar, anti-deal campaigns. 'In public opinion, the high
point was the day the agreement was announced.' ... But other steadfast
critics are still battling. United Against a Nuclear Iran, which
Lieberman chairs, is preparing to unleash yet another ad against the
deal. Coleman and Lieberman's American Security Initiative is still up on
the air. And after going dark for several days, Citizens for a Nuclear
Free Iran is back on the air." http://t.uani.com/1O42TqZ
WashPost:
"Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz
prevented consideration of a resolution at the party's summer meeting
here that praised President Obama and offered backing for the nuclear
agreement with Iran, according to knowledgeable Democrats. The resolution
was drafted with the intention of putting the national committee on
record in support of the agreement as Congress prepares to take up the
issue when members return from their August recess... A party spokeswoman
and said procedural issues prevented the proposed resolution from being
considered. She did not directly address Wasserman Schultz's role in the
decision-making. Other Democrats said that it was congresswoman's direct
opposition that blocked its consideration." http://t.uani.com/1JHq7Pv
Free Beacon:
"A majority of American voters believe that President Obama and
Secretary of State John Kerry are to some extent misleading the public on
the nuclear deal with Iran, a survey released by an organization that
opposes the agreement indicates. Specifically, 64 percent of voters
believe that Obama and Kerry are 'only telling Americans what they think
will help the agreement be passed by Congress,' according to a poll
released by Secure America Now. Only 19 percent believe that the
president and his secretary of state are providing Americans with 'all
the facts.' The poll also demonstrates that 82 percent of U.S. voters-and
74 percent of Democrats-oppose Obama's plan to grant $100 billion in
sanctions relief to Iran over the next several months 'without approval
from Congress.' ... According to the survey, which was conducted between
Aug. 13 and 17, 61 percent of American voters want their representative
lawmakers on Capitol Hill to vote to reject the deal in the wake of
knowledge that Congress will not be provided with details of the
Iran-IAEA agreements." http://t.uani.com/1UnQIah
Sanctions
Relief
WSJ:
"In the 10 years since RAK Ceramics opened a $40 million tile
manufacturing plant in Iran, the United Arab Emirates-based firm has
racked up millions of dollars in losses in the Persian country, fired
hundreds of employees and all but stopped its kilns from burning. But
then Iran struck a nuclear deal with the U.S. and other foreign powers
this summer. Now with sanctions expected to ease, RAK Ceramics is looking
to boost output of the kitchen and bathroom tiles it sells in Iran and
the wider region. Executives for one of the world's largest manufacturers
of tiles and sanitary ware by capacity are now betting the long wait on
Iran is about to pay off. 'We were a patient investor,' says Abdallah
Massaad, RAK Ceramics' chief executive. RAK Ceramics is one of a handful
of Arab-owned firms positioning their businesses to profit from a
post-sanctions neighbor, even as frosty political ties between Iran and
most of the Gulf Cooperation Council-Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the U.A.E.,
Oman, Qatar and Kuwait-show few signs of thawing. The week after the
U.A.E. joined Saudi Arabian-led airstrikes in April against
Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, U.A.E.-owned Etihad Airways
launched a daily commercial service to Iran's capital Tehran. Dubai-owned
FlyDubai has launched seven new routes to Iran this year after a
bilateral aviation agreement was signed in January between the U.A.E. and
Iranian governments. Dubai's Jumeirah Group, operator of the ultra-luxury
Burj Al Arab hotel, is searching for properties in Iran. Officials at DP
World, one of the world's biggest shipping container handlers, recently
visited the Persian state to see if the country's ports and railway infrastructure
can be used to transport goods faster between China and Europe." http://t.uani.com/1FcX2L0
Reuters:
"Would-be foreign investors in Iran should be prepared to share the
benefits of their deals, the country's president said, indicating Tehran
will impose tough terms that could clash with U.S. regulations even after
sanctions are lifted... President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday suggested
foreign investors will be welcome only if they work with a local partner,
hire local workers and transfer technology, in some of the most explicit
comments to date about the obligations businesses are likely to face. 'If
foreign companies or countries think they can take control of a market of
80 million people, they are mistaken, and we must not allow it,' Rouhani
said at a news conference broadcast on state television on Saturday. 'Our
policy is that you bring your investment and technology to the country
and partner with Iranians, and then a part of the Iranian and regional
markets will be within reach of us both and there will be employment for
our youth.' Such requirements are typical in developing economies, but
companies could get into trouble in Iran if they accidentally partner
with an entity under non-nuclear sanctions or share technology with
potential military applications, experts said... Companies could, for
instance, end up linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC),
which controls much of the economy and often hides its financial
interests. Much of the IRGC will remain under terrorism-linked U.S.
sanctions. 'The risk of investing in a business in which there is either
an overt or hidden IRGC interest is probably the single greatest risk
facing investors who are exposed to U.S. or EU regulatory regimes,' said
Nicholas Bortman, partner at risk consultancy GPW." http://t.uani.com/1LFY6Me
Bloomberg:
"Indian Oil Corp. is seeking to build a $3 billion petrochemicals
plant in Iran, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.
Shares rose. The plan hinges on assurances from Iran that the 1 million-ton-a-year
project will have access to cheap natural gas as feedstock, said the
people, who asked not to be identified because the information isn't
public. A company spokesman didn't respond to requests for comment by
phone, text message and e-mail. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's
government is eyeing energy and infrastructure investments totaling
billions of dollars in Iran, including upstream gas production and port
developments. India has sought to secure ties with Iran and ensure access
to its abundant hydrocarbons as years of sanctions on the Persian Gulf
nation may be nearing an end." http://t.uani.com/1LOC1xW
Reuters:
"South Korea will consider increasing its imports of Iranian crude
oil and condensate when sanctions on Tehran are lifted, a senior
government official said on Monday. Woo Tae-hee, deputy minister for
trade, who was part of a recent South Korean delegation to Iran seeking
possible deals in the oil, gas and construction sectors noted there had
been a sharp fall in imports of Iranian oil since the sanctions were
imposed. 'Iranian crude has good quality, and its condensate is one we
can utilize well,' Woo said. 'We will consider increasing imports of
Iranian oil, which however will only be possible when the sanctions are
lifted since they are still present.' ... Iran's Oil Minister Bijan
Zanganeh said after the delegation's visit that Seoul agreed to increase
its purchases of Iranian oil once a nuclear deal with world powers
cleared the way for an easing of international sanctions on Tehran."
http://t.uani.com/1NT0HVx
Terrorism
AFP:
"A policeman was killed and seven people, including a child, injured
in an explosion Friday evening in a predominantly Shiite district of
Bahrain's capital Manama, authorities said... The minister said the
explosives used in the apparent bomb attack was 'very similar' to that
seized by authorities last month which 'came from Iran'. In July,
Bahraini authorities declared they had foiled an attempt to smuggle
weapons from Iran. A few days later, two police officers were killed and
six others injured in a bomb attack on Sitra island outside Manama.
Bahraini authorities said earlier this month they had arrested five
suspects over the attack. Police chief Major General Tariq al-Hasan said
the suspects had links to Iran's Revolutionary Guards and the Iran-backed
Shiite militant movement Hezbollah." http://t.uani.com/1VsK4lB
Human Rights
NYT:
"Iran's judiciary sentenced two people to 10 years in prison on
Sunday for spying for the United States and Israel, but their names were
not released, local media reported. It was not clear if the
Iranian-American reporter Jason Rezaian, who faces similar charges, was
one of them. It is not uncommon in Iran to hand down sentences without
revealing names of the convicted, especially in matters involving
national security. Judiciary spokesman Gholami Hossein Mohseni Ejei told
reporters that a revolutionary court, which is also handling Mr.
Rezaian's case, had sentenced the two 'due to their espionage for the
United States and Israel,' he said according to the semiofficial Iranian
Students News Agency... Mr. Rezaian is charged with spying and assisting
the 'hostile' American government, Iran's judiciary has said. Despite
four sessions in a closed court, no further details of the case or the
allegations have been publicized. According to Iranian law, a verdict
needs to be issued one week after the final court session. Mr. Rezaian's
last session was held on August 10. Instead of issuing a verdict, Iran's
judiciary issued a statement saying that it was up to the judge,
Abdelqassem Salavati, to decide whether the August 10 session was the
final one." http://t.uani.com/1FcVWPt
AFP:
"US Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday urged Iran to free Amir
Hekmati, an American who served as a US Marine, from four years of
'unjust detention.' Saturday marks the fourth anniversary of Hekmati's
imprisonment on what Kerry called 'false espionage charges' while Hekmati
was visiting relatives in the Islamic republic. 'We repeat our call on the
Iranian government to release Amir on humanitarian grounds,' Kerry said
in a statement. 'This is a milestone no family wants to mark, and the
Hekmati family has shown inspiring perseverance in the face of this
injustice,' he added. 'And as befits a former Marine, Amir has shown
tremendous courage in the face of this unjust detention.' Kerry
reiterated his government's call for Iran to release two other Americans.
These include pastor Saeed Abedini, who was arrested in 2012 and
sentenced to eight years in jail for gathering a group of people to study
the Bible, and Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian. Kerry also urged
Iran to 'work cooperatively' to help locate Robert Levinson, a former FBI
agent who disappeared while on Iran's Kish island in 2007." http://t.uani.com/1UnMwrh
AP:
"Dozens of people at a Michigan rally released balloons Saturday to
mark the four-year anniversary of Iran's refusal to free a former Marine
from prison. But they first heard from Amir Hekmati, whose words were
recorded weeks ago during a phone call with relatives. He has been in an
Iranian prison since 2011, although the U.S. government denies he's a spy
and has repeatedly called for his release. 'The list of people I want to
thank is far too long to include here,' Hekmati, 32, said. Rain suddenly
stopped in Bay City as about 100 people turned out to hear remarks from
Hekmati's Flint-area family, U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Michigan, and
others." http://t.uani.com/1fRNqP8
AFP:
"Iran's President Hassan Rouhani signalled Saturday there would be
no quick resolution to the house arrest of the reformist political
leaders who said an election was rigged in 2009. Though not mentioned by
name, the house arrest of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi was
raised at a press conference to mark the start of Rouhani's third year in
office. Mousavi and Karroubi have been under such restrictions since
2011. Both said that the presidential election two years earlier, which
saw Mahmoud Ahmadinejad re-elected, was fraudulent. A reporter asked
Rouhani why, despite 'reviving' hopes that the two former presidential
candidates may be released, though again not naming them, 'we have not
seen anything' on the issue. 'The government cannot do everything on its
own,' Rouhani replied, acknowledging that the matter remained unsolved
but suggesting it could be ended. 'I have made my efforts for resolving
political and social problems but... more explanations can be given at
the time within the framework of national interests.'" http://t.uani.com/1MYjuOj
Foreign Affairs
AFP:
"Iran has barred famed conductor Daniel Barenboim from entering the
Islamic republic because of his Israeli citizenship, thwarting his plan
to lead a performance in Tehran, media reported Sunday. Barenboim, the
72-year-old general music director of the Berlin State Opera House, said
Thursday he was in talks with Iran about a concert, in what would have
been a major example of cultural diplomacy. But an Iranian culture
ministry spokesman, Hossein Noushabadi, said an investigation meant
Barenboim could not enter the country for 'security reasons', though the
Berlin orchestra was welcome. 'We have no problem with the German
orchestra coming to Iran, but we are opposed to the person leading that
group,' Noushabadi said, quoted by news agency ISNA. 'He has multiple
nationalities and one of them is Israeli. For security reasons and to
prevent issues following the entry of certain people into Iran, we
stopped it.'" http://t.uani.com/1PHflgU
Opinion &
Analysis
Sen. James Inhofe
& Scott Pruitt in WSJ: "President Obama's
executive agreement with Iran is enormously controversial for good
reason. Negotiated in coordination with Russia, China, France, Germany
and the United Kingdom, the deal welcomes Iran as a participant in the
world community conditioned only on marginal changes to its nuclear
program. It effectively allows Iran to maintain technology that would
lead to a nuclear weapon, as well as continue its human-rights abuses,
sponsoring of terrorism, imprisoning of American hostages, and threats to
American allies, including Israel. Fortunately, the U.S. states have the
power to limit these threats, if they all choose to use it. President
Obama pursued this major international accord as an executive agreement,
rather than as a treaty, in order to evade the Constitution's requirement
of two-thirds approval by the U.S. Senate for enactment. The consequence
of the president's decision to skirt the people's representatives in
Congress is that the people, through the states, may come to their own
decisions regarding sanctions on Iran. To date, 25 states have enacted
such sanctions against Iran. This is pursuant to the explicit
authorization for such sanctions contained in the Comprehensive Iran
Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, in which Congress
found 'that the United States should support the decision of any State or
local government that for moral, prudential, or reputational reasons
divests from, or prohibits the investment of assets of the State or local
government in' Iran. These sanctions were bipartisan accomplishments in
states from New York to Florida to Texas to California, and they were
passed as expressions of those states' disapproval of a regime that holds
American citizens in darkened cells and American allies under threat of
annihilation. Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed during July 28
congressional testimony that President Obama's deal does not affect the
states' ability to impose sanctions on Iran, but said that the
administration 'will take steps to urge [the states] not to interfere,'
because President Obama had, as part of the deal, agreed to 'actively
encourage' the states to drop their sanctions. We urge states to do
exactly the opposite. Rather than drop their sanctions against Iran,
states should strengthen and expand those sanctions. Regardless of
President Obama's view of Iran, the states certainly have numerous moral
and reputational reasons to prohibit the investment of public assets,
such as pension funds, into companies doing business with countries that sponsor
terrorism, and to prohibit state agencies from doing business with such
companies... Because of these moral, reputational and prudential reasons,
on Monday we are sending and endorsing a letter and a draft sanctions
document to all 50 states, calling on the 25 states with existing
sanctions to strictly and aggressively enforce those sanctions, and
encouraging the 25 states that have not yet enacted sanctions to take
every executive and legislative action available to immediately impose
sanctions on Iran." http://t.uani.com/1MYfAEZ
Richard Haass in
WSJ: "The agreement to constrain Iran's nuclear
capacity, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which the U.S.
Congress will vote on next month, places significant limits on Iran's
nuclear program for a decade or longer. At the same time, the accord
allows Iran access to resources that will enhance its ability to carry
out a worrisome agenda throughout much of the Middle East. In addition,
the agreement in no way resolves the problems posed by Iran's nuclear
program. To the contrary, these problems could well grow as most of the
restrictions on centrifuges and enriched uranium run out after 10 and 15
years respectively. So what should Congress do? Just to be clear, it is
not being asked to vote on whether the accord is good or bad but whether
the U.S. would be better or worse off with it. Nor should the vote be
based on hopes the agreement will bring about a more moderate Iran. This
is possible, but so, too, is the opposite. We cannot know if Iran will be
transformed, much less how or how much. The agreement is a transaction
that should be judged on its merits. It is a close call. The JCPOA like
any pact is filled with compromises, some understandable, others
questionable. Unfortunately, renegotiating the accord is not an option.
The U.S. would quickly make itself rather than Iran the issue.
International support for sanctions would erode. Rejecting the agreement
would make it likely that Iran would resume nuclear activity in one or
more areas the agreement prohibits. That would bring closer a difficult
and far-reaching decision on whether to use military force in a
preventive strike. Rejecting the agreement would also reinforce questions
around the world as to American political dysfunction. Reliability and
predictability are essential attributes for a great power that must both
reassure and deter. On the other hand, simply voting in support of the
agreement does nothing to address its shortcomings. There is, however, a
third option: to make any vote in favor of the agreement conditional on
the U.S. adopting policies and positions that supplement and clarify the
JCPOA. The following seven points would address many of the legitimate
questions and concerns voiced by members of Congress and others in a manner
that would protect U.S. interests and position the U.S. to deal with the
Iranian challenge for the long haul. These points could be made in a
White House communication, congressional resolution, or both." http://t.uani.com/1PHhHfN
Amb. James Jeffrey
in WashPost: "The drama is breathtaking. A decisive
president makes a crucial decision on the Middle East issue that defines
his tenure, a decision that could transform not just the specific
situation but regional security. Yet he has just lost both houses of
Congress, opinion polls on the decision are heading south, lawmakers are
up in arms, and even some in his administration have doubts. But rather
than hesitate, he drives ahead. Barack Obama, 2015, with Iran? No, George
W. Bush, 2006-07, with the Iraq troop surge to save his effort in the
country he ordered the U.S. military to invade. Both presidents, at the
same point in their tenures, pushed major initiatives against very strong
domestic opposition. Given the similarities, the fate of Bush's surge could
provide insight into the fate of the Joint Comprehensive Program of
Action with Iran. Bush's success suggests that, one way or another, Obama
will also prevail in implementing the Iran deal... But aside from
presidential grit and creative legal reasoning, there is another reason
that Obama is likely to prevail. The international system over which the
United States still presides rests on the ability of the American
president to act unilaterally even on unpopular decisions if a vital
national interest is at stake. Bush, facing the collapse of his Iraq
policy if he could not curb that country's descent into civil war, acted
on such an interest, despite resistance in Congress, deep skepticism in
the Iraq Study Group and doubts among many top advisers. We see similar
behavior by Obama on Iran. His American University defense of the deal
was simplistic, but left no doubt where he stands. That doesn't mean the
agreement deserves to survive, only that Obama will use every trick in
the book to ensure it does. Just as Bush coupled the surge with
commitments for a relatively rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq,
Obama might have to concede points on his Iran project to critics to save
the deal, but save it he likely will. Which means the more interesting
question is not whether the deal will survive, but whether the nuclear
agreement and Obama's underlying Iran project will suffer the same fate
as seen with Bush's Iraq project... Like the surge, the deal has become
the defining element in a presidential project to transform the Middle
East. Obama's is focused on Iran, while Bush's focused on Iraq. The first
characteristic of these projects is serious risk - with Iraq, major
conflict; with Iran, regional and alliance turbulence. The second is
deviation from standard U.S. foreign policy since 1945. With few
disastrous exceptions (North Korea 1950, Bay of Pigs 1961), that policy
has concentrated on defending its global perimeter while containing first
communism and, since 1989, chaos in places like the Middle East, in part
due to public opposition to more ambitious but riskier national gambits.
But ambitious is exactly what the projects behind the surge and Iran deal
have been - to transform, respectively, Iraq and Iran, and thereby move
the Middle East decisively toward a peaceful global community. Bush and
Obama's means differ, but not the goal: fix the problem rather than, as
usual, manage it... So the fate of Bush's project can shed light on
Obama's. While the surge worked militarily, and some American-encouraged
democratic reforms survive, the United States did not succeed in the
larger project to inculcate our values in Iraq, and even less in the
region as a whole. There are many reasons for the 'Arab Spring,' but Iraq
was not among them. The surge was a courageous gamble by Bush that saved
the United States and Iraq from military defeat, but has not transformed
the Middle East. Obama's Iran project faces similar risks. Ambitious
efforts of this kind require projecting our values onto very different
societies, with extremely broad goals based on the presumed universality
of those values. But this is a huge lift with little precedent aside from
America's unique experiences in Japan and Germany. And thanks to the
timing of U.S. elections, in both cases, soon after tactical success -
implementing the surge, negotiating the Iran deal - the president in
question had or has to make way for a successor, although in both cases,
the larger project still faced or faces public skepticism. Bush's
successor, Obama, campaigned on an 'ending America's wars' theme not
compatible with a transformational Iraq policy, as seen in his
half-hearted effort to keep a troop presence there. Likewise, Obama will
yield office almost certainly to someone more skeptical toward Iran. That
includes any Republican, but also Hillary Clinton, his former secretary
of state, who said last month that 'even if we do get such a deal, we
will still have major problems from Iran.' Thus, even if Obama is right
on Iran's potential transformation, he won't be around to nudge it
forward, just as Bush was not there to ensure that the surge's success
could jump-start regional change. It's not that Bush had to be proven
wrong on Iraq; rather, absent immediate, demonstrable and extraordinary
success, the political friction such a bold endeavor generated almost
guaranteed he would be succeeded by a leader who isn't enthused about
carrying it forward. The timing didn't work for him, and well might not
for Obama. His bet on an Iran transformed has to be immediately, demonstrably
and extraordinarily right, or his larger project could suffer the same
fate as Bush's in the hands of his successor." http://t.uani.com/1KnOfxn
|
|
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