|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
Reuters:
"Violations of an arms embargo by Iran or restrictions on its
missile program would not force an automatic reinstatement or 'snapback'
of United Nations sanctions under a landmark nuclear deal, although other
options would be available, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on
Tuesday. 'The arms embargo is not tied to snapback,' Kerry said. 'It is tied
to a separate set of obligations. So they are not in material breach of
the nuclear agreement for violating the arms piece of it.' ... Iran's
senior nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi made clear last month that Tehran
had no intention of complying with the arms embargo and missile
sanctions. 'Whenever it's needed to send arms to our allies in the
region, we will do so,' he said. 'We are not ashamed of it.'" http://t.uani.com/1JTPbb3
AP:
"The lone Democratic senator to publicly oppose President Barack Obama's
nuclear agreement with Iran said Tuesday that even if the U.S. backs away
and other countries lift their sanctions, Iran still will feel meaningful
pressure from the U.S. penalties... Schumer also said that sanctions
aimed at companies that do business with Iran could force U.S. allies and
trade partners back to the negotiating table. 'Let's not forget, those
secondary sanctions are very powerful,' Schumer told reporters in New
York as he detailed a decision he first announced last week. He said these
sanctions alert corporations, such as the French oil company Total, that
if it deals with Iran, it cannot deal with the United States. 'We have
that powerful tool, and if used, I think that's a better, better chance
in a very difficult world than an agreement that is so totally flawed,'
Schumer said... He was asked by reporters whether he intended to lobby
colleagues to vote with him. 'Certainly, I'm going to try to persuade my
colleagues that my viewpoint is right, but anyone who thinks you can
force somebody to vote with you in the Senate doesn't understand the
Senate,' he said. 'This is a vote of conscience. It was a vote of
conscience for me. It will be a vote of conscience for my
colleagues.'" http://t.uani.com/1P6wJLO
JPost:
"Fresh off the successfully negotiated agreement on Iran's nuclear
project, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told reporters in Beirut
on Tuesday that the Islamic Republic's major challenge in the region is
in 'confronting...the Zionist and extremist regime.' Zarif arrived on an
official visit to the Lebanese capital on Tuesday to discuss bilateral
and regional issues, including a 'new plan' on how to resolve the crisis
in neighboring Syria, according to an Iranian foreign ministry
spokeswoman. Tehran's top diplomat also met with Hezbollah chief Hassan
Nasrallah. According to Al-Safir, Zarif held a long meeting with
Nasrallah on Tuesday evening... Shortly after arriving in Beirut, Zarif
warned that Israel played a 'dangerous game' with the Iranian nuclear
file, a game in which it has been defeated... Zarif said it was necessary
to 'confront the challenges of the region, the most important of which is
the Zionist and extremist regime.'" http://t.uani.com/1IGDuCp
Nuclear Program & Agreement
AP:
"Iran's intelligence agencies have penetrated CIA front companies,
executed Western agents and captured a sophisticated U.S. drone. So why
should anyone believe American intelligence officials when they express
confidence that they can monitor Iran's compliance with the
just-completed nuclear agreement? The main reason, according to a
classified joint intelligence assessment presented to Congress, is that the
deal requires Iran to provide an unprecedented volume of information
about nearly every aspect of its existing nuclear program, which Iran
insists is peaceful. That data will make checking on compliance easier,
officials say, because it will shrink Iran's capacity to hide a covert
weapons program... Outside experts don't dispute that. But they question
- considering past blunders of U.S. intelligence in the Middle East -
whether American spying will really be able to detect every instance of
Iranian cheating. 'The intelligence community can rarely guarantee, We're
going find the secret site,' said David Albright, a former weapons
inspector who heads the Institute for Science and International Security.
'They have found them before in Iran and that's good, but I think they
are going to have to do more work and bolster their capabilities to find
secret sites in Iran in an environment when Iran is taking counter
measures against them.'" http://t.uani.com/1MnZaHx
AP:
"Secretary of State John Kerry sparred Tuesday with the lone
Democratic senator to publicly oppose last month's historic Iran nuclear
deal, saying there was no way the U.S. could prevent American allies from
doing business with Tehran if Congress were to reject the agreement.
Speaking across town in New York, Sen. Chuck Schumer disagreed and
suggested Washington still could force the world into isolating the
Iranians until they make deeper nuclear concessions... 'Are you kidding
me?' he asked the crowd. 'The United States is going to start sanctioning
our allies and their banks and their businesses because we walked away
from a deal? And we're going to force them to do what we want them to do,
even though they agreed to the deal we came to?' ... He said that
European governments could walk away from the U.S.-led sanctions strategy
against Russia, that the United States and Israel would have no support
for military action against Iran, if such action were necessary, and that
the U.S. dollar would lose its status as the reserve currency of the
world. The top American diplomat also challenged those who have
criticized the length of the deal's restrictions on Iranian enrichment of
material that can be used in nuclear warheads and other elements of its
program. He suggested it was illegitimate to worry that Iran would be a
'nuclear threshold nation' in 15 years or 20 years, because it already is
one today. 'They became that while we had a policy of no enrichment,' he
said, referencing the continued demand of Republicans and Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu." http://t.uani.com/1Na0Za9
Tasnim (Iran):
"Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar
Salehi said Iran plans to build two more nuclear reactors in addition to
the existing Bushehr nuclear power plant. '...we would be working on
different advanced machines. We would be working on the IR8, on the IR6.
The IR8 and IR6 are the two candidates that could really meet our needs
in terms of producing enough enrichment capacity to meet the annual needs
of (the Bushehr power reactor). And 10 years from now, we will have two
other nuclear power reactors added to Bushehr. But using (the permitted
centrifuges), in 15 years we will be in a position to meet the fuel
requirements of these reactors,' Salehi said in an exclusive interview
with Science at AEOI headquarters in northern Tehran published on August
12." http://t.uani.com/1IZ0WHU
Tasnim (Iran):
"Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Hassan
Firouzabadi announced Wednesday that the country's missile tests will be
carried out on schedule, according to plans endorsed by Supreme Leader of
the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei. The
announcement came in response to a statement by some Iranian lawmakers,
requesting that the Armed Forces resume conducting missile tests. In
their statement, the MPs had called for the resumption of missile tests
in reaction to the US officials' brazen rhetoric of war against Iran.
Thanking the Iranian lawmakers for their concerns, Major General
Firouzabadi gave an assurance that missile tests will be performed at the
appropriate time according to plans endorsed by the Supreme Leader."
http://t.uani.com/1Mo3Ltb
Congressional
Vote
Politico:
"With liberal groups furious over his opposition to the Iran nuclear
deal, Sen. Chuck Schumer has been quietly reaching out to dozens of his
colleagues to explain his decision and assure them he would not be
whipping opposition to the deal, according to Democratic senators and
aides. After news of his decision to vote 'no' on the Iran agreement first
leaked Thursday night, Schumer (D-N.Y.) has spoken to 20 to 30 fellow
Democrats about why he will vote with the GOP leadership against the
deal, sources said. Schumer had been planning to make these calls on
Friday, before his position on Iran became public, but was not able to do
so because it had leaked the night before. In these conversations,
Schumer has been walking through his position on the Iran agreement, the
product of lengthy negotiations between the leading world powers and the
Iranian government. Schumer, though, is not lobbying his colleagues to
vote against the agreement when the Senate takes up a 'resolution of
disapproval' next month, several undecided senators said during
interviews." http://t.uani.com/1JTQYN6
The Hill:
"Democratic senators say Sen. Charles Schumer's opposition to
President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran won't prevent him from becoming
their next leader. Even a potential rival to Schumer said Democratic
senators who back the Iran deal will not turn on Schumer over the
divisive vote. 'I don't think the choice of the next Senate leader is
going to be based on any single vote. Members of the caucus respect Chuck
and know he's gone through a thoughtful reflection. I don't think it has
any impact on the leadership race,' Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin
(Ill.), the No. 2 Senate Democrat, told The Hill in an interview...
Schumer's decision has irritated the White House and enraged former aides
to President Obama, who have launched a public attack on the powerful New
York Democrat... Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), the vice chairwoman of
the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee and a close ally of
Schumer's, said the criticisms from former White House officials are
'unfortunate.' 'He's very, very respectful of the members of our caucus.
I think this has zero effect on him being a leader or an effective
leader. And I think it's very unfortunate to see the comments coming from
people connected with the White House,' she said." http://t.uani.com/1TtMJbK
Politico:
"If Congress votes down the Iran nuclear deal, President Barack
Obama says, the agreement will collapse and war will come 'soon.' But
Obama has broad powers to act alone - even against the will of Congress -
say experts and former administration officials familiar with internal
deliberations. Using his executive branch authority, Obama could
effectively halt many U.S. sanctions on Iran, they say, in a bid to
persuade Tehran to meet its end of the bargain. 'It might not be
everything,' said a former administration official familiar with Iran
policy. But the president's powers 'can get you a lot of the way' toward
sanctions relief for Tehran. Such a move would be audacious, and sure to
enrage members of Congress. 'Oh boy, the Hill will be in Defcon 1 mode,'
said a Senate foreign policy aide. It could also provoke a constitutional
showdown over presidential powers, sources warned, although Obama has
invoked his executive authority to defy Congress on immigration and
climate change." http://t.uani.com/1J3YYKN
Reuters:
"If the United States walks away from the nuclear deal with Iran and
demands that its allies comply with U.S. sanctions, a loss of confidence
in U.S. leadership could threaten the dollar's position as the world's
reserve currency, the top U.S. diplomat said on Tuesday. 'If we turn
around and nix the deal and then tell them, You're going to have to obey
our rules and sanctions anyway, that is a recipe, very quickly ... for
the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world,'
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said at a Reuters Newsmaker event...
Kerry warned of a potential loss of U.S. financial and political clout.
He said this was not something that would happen overnight but many
countries were 'chafing' under the present international financial
arrangements. He said U.S. Treasury experts 'are doing a full dive on how
this works and what the implications are. But the notion that we can just
sort of diss the deal and unilaterally walk away as Congress wants to do
will have a profound negative impact on people's sense of American
leadership and reliability.' New York-based Boris Schlossberg, managing
director of FX Strategy, BK Asset Management, challenged Kerry's
reasoning. He said the dollar's status could be compromised only if the
United States was unable to compete economically on a global scale. 'The
reality of the situation is that the U.S. dollar hasn't been this strong
in decades. The thought that it could be replaced as a reserve currency
is laughable at this point on a geopolitical basis and nothing in the
Iran deal even remotely touches upon that issue,' he added." http://t.uani.com/1DMJ72R
The Hill:
"Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday said the administration
was not seeking to demonize those who don't support the Iran deal or
suggest they are warmongers. 'I'm not accusing anyone of willfully
choosing that or being a warmonger, or suggesting that they want that,
even though you've heard some pretty flashy language in some hearings
about who wins war and what happens,' Kerry said during a discussion
hosted by Reuters. 'But what I am saying is people really owe it to
everybody to evaluate fully what happens if Congress were to override a
veto and say no,' he said. Critics have blasted the administration for
arguing that the only alternative to the deal is war with Iran and
comparing Iraq War supporters with opponents of the Iran deal. 'Let's not
mince words: The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some
form of war - maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but
soon,' Obama said in a 56-minute address from American University last
week." http://t.uani.com/1gzTtIF
Breitbart:
"Tuesday on CNN's 'Newsroom With Carol Costello,' House
Democratic Whip Rep. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) broke ranks with President
Barack Obama saying he did not agree with his administration's stance
that if the Iran nuclear deal was not passed, the only alternative is
war. Hoyer said, 'I do not believe that if the agreement were not
approved that that is a path to war. We imposed the sanctions through
Congress with the cooperation of the administration. The sanctions in my
opinion, brought Iran to the table. And the first steps, of course, would
be to A - keep sanctions in place, and B - perhaps to make sanctions even
tougher. So that, I don't agree that we would set the country to a path
to war." http://t.uani.com/1hxYBhl
Free Beacon:
"The executive director of Veterans Against the Deal, the group
behind a gripping new ad that urges Congress to reject the Iran nuclear
deal, talked with Fox News on Tuesday about Iran's decades-long war
against the U.S. 'This [deal] is giving an enemy going back 35 years more
money and arms, and it actually allows a terrorist general to violate
existing sanctions by traveling to Iraq to fund a proxy war, going to
Yemen to fund a proxy war, and going to Russia to facilitate an arms
deal-again in violation of sanctions,' Executive Director Michael
Pregent, who was an intelligence advisor to Gen. David Petraeus, said.
'To us, it's baffling. We want our veterans to be heard on this this.'
... 'This money will go back to the organizations that were sanctioned to
begin with for conducting terrorism operations,' Pregent said. 'It's not
going back to the people.' Iran's actions have exacted a heavy cost on
the U.S. military: More than 500 U.S. soldiers were killed by Iranian
bombs during the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and 241 were killed in the
Iraninan-backed bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. 'We
know this enemy very well. We have veterans going back to Beirut bombing
that will be able to talk about this,' Pregent said." http://t.uani.com/1JcG0nc
NYT:
"Though he backs the accord as the most that can be achieved
diplomatically, Mr. Samore is skeptical that the agreement will open a
new chapter in American-Iranian relations. 'The best you can achieve with
diplomacy is delay in the hope that at some point a new Iranian
government emerges that is not committed to developing nuclear weapons,'
he said. And if that leadership does not materialize, Mr. Samore
acknowledges that Iran might vastly expand its nuclear enrichment program
after core elements of the agreement expire in 15 years. He is also not
convinced that Iran will continue to adhere to the accord once economic
sanctions are lifted." http://t.uani.com/1TpUAwh
Sanctions
Relief
Reuters:
"Iran needs to offer better incentives to lure foreign energy
companies forced by low oil prices to slash investments, the head of
Austrian energy group OMV said ahead of a trip to the country next month.
Tehran reached an historic deal with world powers last month to curb its
nuclear programme in exchange for much-needed sanctions relief which
could trigger an influx of billions of dollars into the country. 'Iran is
a big opportunity for OMV,' OMV's new Chief Executive Rainer Seele told
reporters, but added: 'Currently the conditions for potential investors
are not sufficient for us to enter into investment commitments.' He said
current Iranian production sharing agreements were not good enough, but
did not elaborate on why investment conditions were insufficient or what
conditions OMV would want. However, he acknowledged 'a strong will to
offer attractive conditions' on the part of the Iranians. Last month,
Tehran said it had identified nearly 50 oil and gas projects worth $185
billion that it hoped to sign by 2020." http://t.uani.com/1Na1lxr
Reuters:
"Iran has told India that the development rights for the Farzad-B
gas field would be available to Indian companies, an Oil India Ltd
executive said on Wednesday, after concerns in New Delhi that cash-rich
European companies could clinch a contract. A consortium headed by ONGC
Videsh, the overseas investment arm Oil and Natural Gas Corp, originally
signed a deal in December 2002 to explore the Farsi offshore block in Iran
that includes the Farzad-B field. An Indian delegation that went to Iran
in the last week of July was told that Tehran was working out a new
production sharing contract, said B. Roy, head of business development at
Oil India. Iran is also willing to sell liquefied natural gas to India,
Oil Minister Dharmendra Pradhan told lawmakers on Wednesday." http://t.uani.com/1Mk1w8L
Reuters:
"Aug 12 Iran could raise its oil output by as much as 730,000
barrels per day (bpd) from current levels fairly quickly after sanctions
are removed, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday. The
West's energy watchdog estimated that Iranian oilfields, which pumped
around 2.87 million bpd in July, could increase production to between 3.4
million and 3.6 million bpd within months of sanctions being lifted.
'While significantly higher production is unlikely before next year, oil
held in floating storage - at the highest level since sanctions were
tightened in mid-2012 - could start to reach international markets before
then,' the IEA said in a monthly report. Iranian Oil Minister Bijan
Zanganeh has said Iran expects to raise oil output by 500,000 bpd as soon
as sanctions are lifted and by a million bpd within months." http://t.uani.com/1f7LSA8
Press TV (Iran):
"Iranian and Spanish companies have signed a memorandum of
understanding to implement power generation projects worth $250 million
in Chile and Mexico. The agreement signed between Iran's electrical
products company Sunir and Spanish firm Bester Generation envisages joint
execution of projects in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, Sunir
Managing Director Bahman Salehi said. Salehi and Bester's Executive
Director Antonio Sanchez signed a technical engineering agreement to work
on designing and producing equipment related to solar and other
renewables." http://t.uani.com/1Mk7kiw
Human Rights
ICHRI:
"The blatant denial of due process on display on the last day of
Jason Rezaian's trial on August 10, 2015, when his lawyer was not allowed
to present arguments in response to the prosecutor, confirms the
political and pre-ordained nature of the prosecution of the Washington
Post reporter who has spent the last year behind bars in Iran. 'During
Monday's session I presented an oral defense of my client but there was
no opportunity for me to respond after the prosecutor's representative
spoke. [Therefore] I submitted my written response to the court,'
Rezaian's lawyer, Leila Ahsan, told ISNA (the Iranian Students News
Agency). One reporter among the dozens of domestic and international
journalists waiting outside the court told the International Campaign for
Human Rights in Iran that Rezaian's mother informed the reporters no one
was able to interview Jason's wife, Yeganeh Salehi, because she had been
banned from speaking to the media. Judge Salavati, of Branch 15 of the
Revolutionary Court, presided over Rezaian's case. Salavati has a long
history of close cooperation with the intelligence arm of Iran's
Revolutionary Guards, and is routinely handpicked by the Judiciary to preside
over political cases due to his court rulings and the notoriously harsh
sentences he hands down." http://t.uani.com/1f7Gq0b
Opinion &
Analysis
WashPost
Editorial: "When Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.)
decided he would vote against President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran,
he explained his reasoning in a 1,700-word essay. On balance, he
concluded, 'the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will,
instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.'
We disagree with that conclusion, but not with serene confidence; we
share the senator's concern that Iran will use the lifting of sanctions
to intensify its toxic behavior in the region. We understand and respect
Mr. Schumer's decision; also, it's generally better to treat policy
disagreements in good faith. That has not been the spirit in which Mr.
Obama and his team have met his Iran-deal critics. The president has
countered them with certitude and ad hominem attacks, the combined import
of which is that there are no alternatives to his policy, that support
for the deal is an obvious call and that nearly anyone who suggests
otherwise is motivated by politics or ideology. Mr. Obama's rhetoric
reached its low point when he observed that the deal's opponents value
war over diplomacy and that Iranian extremists were 'making common cause
with the Republican caucus.' This was self-contradictory when the
president said it; one of the announced GOP opponents, Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (Tenn.), is a man Mr. Obama
himself praised, just four months ago, as 'sincerely concerned about this
issue' and 'a good and decent man.' The White House lost further
consistency after Mr. Schumer's announcement. If there's anyone who's not
a Republican partisan, it's the arch-Democrat from New York, who's
planning a bid to lead the Democratic Senate caucus after the current
leader, Harry Reid (Nev.), retires. As payback, the White House and its
allies are openly encouraging Democrats to deny him the job... By not
sticking to the merits of the deal, Mr. Obama implies a lack of
confidence in them. The contrast is striking between the president's tone
today and his 2008 speech accepting the Democratic nomination: Looking
ahead to debating his GOP opponent, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), he pledged
that 'what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions
for political purposes, because one of the things that we have to change
in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without
challenging each other's character and each other's patriotism.' There's
a sad progression from that aspiration to an approach that is all about
winning, even if it has to be winning ugly." http://t.uani.com/1hy0EC6
Jeffrey Goldberg
in The Atlantic: "A few days ago, I spoke with U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry about the politics of the Iran deal (you
can find the full interview here), and at one point in our conversation I
put to Kerry what I thought was-to be honest-something of a gimme
question: 'Do you believe that Iranian leaders sincerely seek the
elimination of the Jewish state?' Kerry responded
provocatively-provocatively, that is, if you understand Iranian leaders,
and in particular the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the way I
understand them: as people theologically committed to the destruction of
Israel. Quotes such as this one from Khamenei help lead me to this
conclusion: 'This barbaric, wolflike, and infanticidal regime of Israel
which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated.' The supreme
leader does not specialize in nuance. (Here is a long list of statements
made by Iranian leaders concerning their desire to bring about an end to
Jewish sovereignty in any part of the ancestral Jewish homeland.) Kerry's
stated understanding of the regime's anti-Semitism is somewhat different
from mine. He told me, 'I think they have a fundamental ideological
confrontation with Israel at this particular moment. Whether or not that
translates into active steps, to quote, 'Wipe it,' you know ...' He
paused, and so I filled in the blank: 'Wipe it off the map.' Kerry
continued, 'I don't know the answer to that. I haven't seen anything that
says to me-they've got 80,000 rockets in Hezbollah pointed at Israel, and
any number of choices could have been made. They didn't make the bomb when
they had enough material for 10 to 12. They've signed on to an agreement
where they say they'll never try and make one and we have a mechanism in
place where we can prove that. So I don't want to get locked into that
debate. I think it's a waste of time here.' Kerry's understanding, in
shorthand: Iran is dangerous to Israel at this moment (he repeated the
term 'at this moment' in his next statement, in fact); Iran has had
plenty of opportunity to hurt Israel but has chosen not to; and, finally,
the answer to the question concerning the true intentions of Iran's
leaders when it comes to Israel is unknowable, and also irrelevant to the
current discussion. I found many of Kerry's answers to my other questions
convincing, but I was troubled by what I took to be his unwillingness, or
inability, to grapple squarely with Iran's eliminationist desires. The
way he and President Barack Obama understand the question of
Iranian-state anti-Semitism is crucially important as we move closer to a
congressional vote on the nuclear deal negotiated by Kerry and his
team." http://t.uani.com/1Tqjkog
|
|
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