Eye on Iran: Obama Gets Low Marks for His Handling of Iran

Join UANI           Top Stories Gallup: "Only one in three Americans approve of President Barack Obama's handling of the situation in Iran -- his lowest rating of eight issues measured in a new Gallup survey. The president's policy toward Iran has been a major focus as he tries to drum up support for the multi-national agreement to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities that Secretary of State John Kerry helped broker... As recently as February, Americans gave Iran the lowest favorable rating of 22 countries, and a strong majority felt Iran's development of nuclear weapons posed a 'critical' threat to the U.S. Consistent with partisans' views on other issues, most Democrats, 56%, approve of Obama's handling of the situation in Iran, contrasted with a small minority of Republicans (10%)." http://t.uani.com/1IQHo9E JTA: "The Obama administration is concerned that Iran will increase backing for terrorism and other disruptive activities in the wake of the nuclear deal, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said in an address to American Jews. 'We are concerned about some possible escalation in their support for terrorism, meddling in the region in terms of stability,' Moniz said Thursday in the webcast organized by the Jewish Federations of North America and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. 'Obviously Hezbollah terrorism is an example.' ... The concern expressed by Moniz, a top negotiator at the talks, was unusual in that, unprompted, he said directly that the administration anticipates an increase in terrorist activity. He also said the regime's rhetoric on Jews and Israel was a concern. 'We find extremely bothersome to put it mildly the strong anti-Israel, anti-Semitic rhetoric coming out of Iran,' he said." http://t.uani.com/1hChaRx AP: "It was supposed to be a long and uncomfortable August for Democrats undecided about President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, but so far the political heat brought on by opponents of the much-contested accord is more of a simmer than a rolling boil. Millions of dollars in television and online advertisements by an offshoot of the powerful American Israel Political Action Committee are aimed at more than a dozen states represented by undecided Democrats, among them Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Chris Coons of Delaware and Mark Warner of Virginia... So do lawmakers feel like the ads are tightening the screws? It is August, after all, when fewer eyeballs watch TV and many people are on vacation. 'No pressure at all,' said Manchin spokesman Jonathan Kott, adding that his boss is leaning toward supporting the agreement. 'I know he is aware of the ads and campaigns, but he hasn't heard about them from constituents.' Ads are also running in the Philadelphia media market, aimed at Sens. Bob Casey, D-Pa., Chris Coons, D-Del., and Cory Booker, D-N.J. 'Sen. Coons is paying closer attention to the calls, emails and letters the office is receiving from constituents regarding the Iran deal,' said spokesman Sean Coit." http://t.uani.com/1KlxEo0 Nuclear Program & Agreement Reuters: "Russia urged the United States on Friday to scrap plans to station parts of a missile shield system in Europe now that Iran has reached an agreement with world powers to limit its nuclear program. Moscow has long opposed the plan, which it sees as a threat to its nuclear deterrence, and vowed to retaliate if it goes ahead. Washington has previously assured Moscow the shield was meant as protection from 'rogue' states like Iran, and not directed against Russia. Since the July agreement under which Tehran agreed to curb its nuclear program in exchange for an easing of U.N., U.S. and European Union sanctions, Moscow has stepped up its rhetoric against the missile shield. 'We don't see any reason to continue with the program, let alone at such an accelerated pace and with a clear aim at the Russian nuclear potential,' Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told reporters." http://t.uani.com/1LbKomN Bloomberg: "Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he'll use his subcommittee chairmanship to cut off U.S. financing for the International Atomic Energy Agency unless it provides Congress with copies of confidential agreements between the agency and Iran on the country's nuclear program. 'Given anticipated legislative action on this controversial deal in the Senate next month, firsthand information on IAEA side agreements are vital to both the debate and decision making process for all members -- irrespective of their views of Iran or the merits of the deal,' Graham, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, said in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry released Thursday. The South Carolina senator, who leads the Senate Appropriations panel that oversees contributions to the IAEA, said in the letter dated Aug. 11 that he plans to 'condition and/or withhold' $88 million of U.S. funding to the United Nations agency in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 unless it provides the agreements." http://t.uani.com/1J8waAY   Congressional Vote The Hill: "The nuclear deal with Iran will give the U.S., Israel and other countries the 'freedom' to confront Tehran's support for terrorism and violations of human rights, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told Jewish groups Thursday. Speaking from Washington in remarks broadcast live online, Moniz said the agreement with Iran could allow the U.S. to increase its attention on 'other aspects of Iranian behavior that give us serious problems.' 'We are trying to increase security cooperation' with Israel and Arab allies, Moniz said in a webcast session coordinated by Jewish Federations of North America. 'Doing so with the comfort that Iran does not have and will not have a nuclear weapon - the existential threat of a nuclear weapon - will, if anything, give us more freedom of action, if you like, in addressing all these other problems.' Moniz's statement about the ability to crack down on Iran's support for Hezbollah and Houthi rebels in Yemen and its detainment of four American prisoners was coupled with a lengthy discussion about the scientific components of the deal, which limits Iran's nuclear powers in exchange for the lifting of sanctions." http://t.uani.com/1EsaKZX The Hill: "Current and former Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee are trying to persuade their colleagues to back the nuclear deal with Iran by pointing to past intelligence assessments. Classified reviews available to lawmakers make it clear that Iran would not be able to cheat without being detected, ten Democrats wrote in a letter on Thursday. 'We are confident that this monitoring and the highly intrusive inspections provided for in the agreement - along with our own intelligence capabilities - make it nearly impossible for Iran to develop a covert enrichment effort without detection,' they said. 'You need not just take our word for it; please arrange a time to visit the Office of House Security in HVC-301 where you can read the assessment of our intelligence agencies for yourself.' ... Thursday's letter was led by Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). The other Democrats to sign on were Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Luis Guttiérrez (Ill.), Jim Himes (Conn.), André Carson (Ind.), Jackie Speier (Calif.), Eric Swalwell (Calif.), Anna Eshoo (Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) and Mike Thompson (Calif.). Pelosi is an ex-officio member of the panel. Eshoo, Schakowsky and Thompson were formerly members of the Intelligence Committee." http://t.uani.com/1N7w4w6 Sanctions Relief Bloomberg: "Iran has selected 45 oil and gas projects to show international companies at a conference in London in December, when new oil contract models will be discussed ahead of exploration auctions to double the country's crude output. The projects, including oil and gas exploration, will be discussed along with details of a new oil contract model at the Dec. 14-16 conference, Mehdi Hosseini, chairman of Iran's oil contracts restructuring committee, said in an interview in Tehran. Iran hopes to boost crude production to 5.7 million barrels a day, he said... Iran may give companies two to three months to decide whether to bid on the projects, he added. 'The exact length will be decided by the time of the conference.' Shortly after that, Iran will call for bids, he said. 'We consulted with almost all medium and major oil companies over our contractual contents and projects. And the feedbacks have been positive,' Hosseini added." http://t.uani.com/1MohpuG Bloomberg: "The surprise end of Swiss sanctions on Iran on Wednesday won't allow the country's legion of commodity traders to handle the Persian Gulf nation's oil any time soon. While Switzerland is home to some of the world's largest oil traders including Vitol Group, Glencore Plc and Trafigura Beheer BV, their global operations are still bound by U.S. and European Union sanctions that prohibit dealing in Iranian crude. 'As long as they stay in force the practical consequences for the trading houses operating in Switzerland is precisely zero,' said Matthew Parish, managing director of Gentium Law in Geneva, whose clients include trading firms. The Swiss government on Wednesday became the first nation to remove sanctions against Iran after the Gulf state sealed an historic accord with world powers July 14 to curb its nuclear program. The country could export an extra 500,000 barrels a day of oil within a week of international trade restrictions being lifted, Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said this month." http://t.uani.com/1J8wsrn Opinion & Analysis WSJ Editorial Board: "The giveaways hidden in President Obama's Iran nuclear deal keep piling up. By handing $100 billion or more in frozen funds to Tehran, the deal would not only fill the coffers of Iranian terror proxies. It would also abandon American victims of terrorism waiting to collect tens of billions of dollars in compensation owed to them by Iran. Over two decades U.S. federal courts have found the Iranian government liable for orchestrating or supporting the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers U.S. Air Force facility in Saudi Arabia, and multiple shootings and suicide bombings in Israel, among other attacks. Judges have awarded some $45 billion in damages to hundreds of plaintiffs such as Embassy bombing survivor Anne Dammarell and the widow and orphaned children of Hamas bombing victim Ira Weinstein. Iran has refused to pay a cent, while continuing to back Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terror groups. Yet U.S. law provides for the victims to be able to get compensation. Under the 2002 Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, U.S. court judgments against state sponsors of terror can be satisfied by tapping the seized or frozen assets of those states. An estimated $100 billion to $150 billion in Iranian oil money has been held in escrow accounts under U.S. sanctions laws since 2012. That's enough to satisfy the many court rulings in favor of Iranian terror victims, but Mr. Obama's deal would transfer it to Tehran as 'sanctions relief' merely for signing on the dotted line. As even the President admits, some of that money would inevitably end up funding more Iranian-backed terror directed by figures such as Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, who is also set to gain sanctions relief under the pending agreement. A U.S. official told the Journal this month that the U.S. never raised the issue of terrorism victims with Iran. In negotiating Libya's nuclear disarmament a decade ago, by contrast, the U.S. secured an agreement for the Gadhafi regime to compensate victims of attacks such as the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The 1981 Algiers Accord resolving the Iranian hostage crisis included a claims tribunal that ordered $2.5 billion in payments from Tehran. In federal court in New York City last week two dozen victims of Iranian terror sued to block Mr. Obama's deal for disregarding U.S. laws meant to enforce just compensation. 'It would be outrageous to release the $100 billion in frozen Iranian funds when these American families have unpaid court judgments against the terror-sponsoring regime in Tehran,' said lawyer Nitsana Darshan-Leitner. As Iran can't be expected to pay, she said, 'it is really in the hands of the U.S. administration, which encouraged the U.S. victims to file these cases.' By ignoring the $45 billion owed to Iran's terror victims, the U.S. government mocks its own judiciary and erodes a deterrent to foreign state sponsorship of terrorism. This is one more reason for Congress to reject a deal that blesses Iran as a nuclear-threshold state." http://t.uani.com/1INK4H2 NYPost Editorial Board: "President Obama says his nuclear deal with Iran is good not just for America, but also for US ally Israel. Iran's foreign minister disagrees. Mohammad Javad Zarif was in Lebanon this week, meeting with the head Hezbollah terrorist, Hassan Nasrallah. Hezbollah's TV station al-Manar reported, 'Zarif said from Beirut that the nuclear agreement between Tehran and the world powers created a historic opportunity for regional cooperation to fight extremism and face threats posed by the Zionist entity.' Translation: With a 'signing bonus' to Iran of $100 billion or more, the nuke deal will empower the Islamic Republic to send more cash, rockets and other arms to Hezbollah and other anti-Israel terrorist groups. It will also boost Tehran's regional prestige - allowing it to bully other nations into greater hostility toward Israel. Plus, the deal provides a glide-path for Iran to go nuclear in a decade or so, even without cheating. And Iranian nukes will drastically shift the regional balance of power in Tehran's favor - and against Jerusalem. No, this isn't just spin from the Hezbollah station. Zarif told reporters that Iran's top challenge in the region involves 'confronting' 'the Zionist and extremist regime.' It's easy to see why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Labor party nemesis Isaac Herzog are united against the Iran deal. It's much, much harder to see why Obama believes he knows what's in Israel's interests better than the Israelis do." http://t.uani.com/1ErXNiU Robert Satloff in The Atlantic: "Imagine you're a conflicted lawmaker in the U.S. Congress. You've heard all the arguments about the Iran nuclear agreement, pro and con. A vote on the deal is coming up in September and you have to make a decision. But you are torn. Most of your colleagues don't share your angst. They have concluded that the risks of the nuclear accord far exceed its benefits. They will vote to disapprove. Some take the opposing view. They accept President Barack Obama's argument that the agreement will effectively block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon for a very long time at little risk to U.S. interests. You are in a third group. You recognize the substantial achievements in the deal, such as Iran's commitment to cut its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent, gut the core of its plutonium reactor, and mothball thousands of centrifuges. But you have also heard experts identify a long list of gaps, risks, and complications. These range from the three and a half weeks that Iran can delay inspections of suspect sites, to the billions of dollars that Iran will reap from sanctions relief-some of which will surely end up in the hands of terrorists. For his part, the president seems to believe that he negotiated a near-perfect deal. In his recent speech at American University, he described the pact as a 'permanent' solution to the Iranian nuclear problem. It was a shift from when he told an NPR interviewer in April that once limitations on Iran's centrifuges and enrichment activities expire in 15 years, Iran's breakout time to a nuclear weapon would be 'shrunk almost down to zero.' Both statements-achieving a 'permanent' solution and Iran having near-zero breakout time-cannot be true... You may not believe in unicorns, as Secretary of State John Kerry said you must to accept the idea of a 'better deal,' but you have been impressed by suggestions on how to strengthen the agreement. The United States could even implement many of these proposals without reopening negotiations with the Iranians and the P5+1 group of world powers... You wish the president would embrace these sound, sensible suggestions. Inexplicably, he hasn't. And nothing in the administration's public posture suggests that he will change course before Congress votes. So, what will you do? Some of your colleagues have floated the idea of a 'conditional yes' as an alternative to 'approve' and 'disapprove.' They, like you, recognize that the agreement has some significant advantages but are deeply troubled by its risks and costs. They want to attach strings to their 'yes' vote, in the belief that this will bind the president and improve the deal. But the legislation enabling Congress to review the Iran deal does not accommodate a 'conditional yes.' Votes are to 'approve' or 'disapprove.' Legislators may negotiate with the White House over every comma and colon in a resolution of conditionality, and they may even secure one or two grudging concessions from the White House. But neither a resolution of Congress calling for these improvements nor ad-hoc understandings between the White House and individual legislators has the force of law or policy. According to the Iran-review legislation, the only thing that matters is a yea or nay on the agreement. Is there really no 'third way'? The answer is yes, there is. Pursuing it requires understanding what the relevant congressional legislation is really about." http://t.uani.com/1hCeDGZ Yoel Guzansky & Azriel Bermant in Foreign Affairs: "On August 3, the Gulf States publically threw their support behind the Iran nuclear agreement. With some reluctance, Qatari Foreign Minister, Khalid al Attiyah, remarked in a press conference with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that the nuclear deal 'was the best option amongst other options in order to try and come up with a solution for the nuclear weapons of Iran.' Qatar is currently chairing the Gulf Cooperation Council, which also includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. But what the Gulf states say in public is one thing and what they actually believe is another. The Gulf States' animosity toward the Iran deal has not gone away. Two days after the agreement was signed in Vienna on July 14, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a former Saudi ambassador to the United States, wrote in an opinion piece for the Arabic news site Elaph that the deal would 'wreak havoc on the region.' He argued that the terms of the deal made it less secure than the 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea, which fell through in 2003 and is generally seen as a lesson against negotiating with rogue nations. Al Sharq al Awsat, a newspaper owned by a member of the Saudi royal family, recently warned that 'the agreement would open the gates of evil in the Middle East.' The Gulf States remain deeply apprehensive about the agreement's ramifications for their security and standing. For one thing, they are worried that Washington's rapprochement with Iran will come at the expense of their own alliance with the United States. They are also concerned that the agreement will embolden Iran, especially in its support of rebel Shia groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, as well as Syrian President Bashar al Assad. The Saudis fear that in the future, the United States may refrain from pursuing policies that oppose Iran's interests out of concern that Iran will break its commitments under the nuclear agreement. In recent years, the Gulf States have also questioned Washington's future commitment to the region. For example, if the United States achieves energy independence, it will no longer need its Arab allies and may significantly reduce its involvement in the Middle East. The Gulf monarchies are also concerned that a U.S. pivot toward Asia may make the Middle East a lower priority. However, it appears that the prevalent fear in the Gulf is a U.S. pivot toward Iran. In spite of their private reservations, the Gulf States have calculated that it is not in their best interest to publicly defy U.S. President Barack Obama and damage their relations with the United States. They regard the Iran agreement as a done deal and, believe that a strategy of damage control and strategic bargaining is the best way forward. As Iran becomes an increasingly powerful actor in the Middle East, the Gulf States will need U.S. military support to counter its rise." http://t.uani.com/1INLu4v Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew in NYT: "The Iran nuclear deal offers a long-term solution to one of the most urgent threats of our time. Without this deal, Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, would be less than 90 days away from having enough fissile material to make a nuclear bomb. This deal greatly reduces the threat of Iran's nuclear program, making Iran's breakout time four times as long, securing unprecedented access to ensure that we will know if Iran cheats and giving us the leverage to hold it to its commitments. Those calling on Congress to scrap the deal argue that the United States could have gotten a better deal, and still could, if we unilaterally ramped up existing sanctions, enough to force Iran to dismantle its entire nuclear program or even alter the character of its regime wholesale. This assumption is a dangerous fantasy, flying in the face of economic and diplomatic reality. To be sure, the United States does have tremendous economic influence. But it was not this influence alone that persuaded countries across Europe and Asia to join the current sanction policy, one that required them to make costly sacrifices, curtail their purchases of Iran's oil, and put Iran's foreign reserves in escrow. They joined us because we made the case that Iran's nuclear program was an uncontained threat to global stability and, most important, because we offered a concrete path to address it diplomatically - which we did. In the eyes of the world, the nuclear agreement - endorsed by the United Nations Security Council and more than 90 other countries - addresses the threat of Iran's nuclear program by constraining it for the long term and ensuring that it will be exclusively peaceful. If Congress now rejects this deal, the elements that were fundamental in establishing that international consensus will be gone. The simple fact is that, after two years of testing Iran in negotiations, the international community does not believe that ramping up sanctions will persuade Iran to eradicate all traces of its hard-won civil nuclear program or sever its ties to its armed proxies in the region. Foreign governments will not continue to make costly sacrifices at our demand. Indeed, they would more likely blame us for walking away from a credible solution to one of the world's greatest security threats, and would continue to re-engage with Iran. Instead of toughening the sanctions, a decision by Congress to unilaterally reject the deal would end a decade of isolation of Iran and put the United States at odds with the rest of the world. Some critics nevertheless argue that we can force the hands of these countries by imposing powerful secondary sanctions against those that refuse to follow our lead." http://t.uani.com/1UHIdsO           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.