|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
AP:
"Republican opposition to President Barack Obama's nuclear deal is
flaring over revelations of a secret side agreement involving Iranian
inspections. But House Democrats are shrugging off the report and
claiming they have the votes to back up Obama. The Associated Press
reported Wednesday on a previously undisclosed side deal between Iran and
the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency that would allow Tehran to
use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using
to develop nuclear arms... 'President Obama boasts his deal includes
unprecedented verification. He claims it's not built on trust,' said
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. 'But the administration's briefings
on these side deals have been totally insufficient - and it still isn't
clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents.'
Said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif.:
'International inspections should be done by international inspectors.
Period.' But in an interview with the AP, House Democratic leader Nancy
Pelosi questioned the significance of the disclosure, noting it relates
to investigations of past military work, not nuclear dealings going
forward. 'I truly believe in this agreement,' she said. And the
California Democrat asserted that House Democrats have the votes to
uphold any Obama veto of a congressional resolution disapproving of the
Iran agreement... The document seen by the AP is a draft that one
official familiar with its contents said doesn't differ substantially from
the final version. He demanded anonymity because he isn't authorized to
discuss the issue. It is labeled 'separate arrangement II,' indicating
there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA
governing the agency's probe of the nuclear weapons allegations. The
document suggests that instead of carrying out their own probe, IAEA
staff will monitor Iranian personnel as they inspect the Parchin nuclear
site. Iran will provide agency experts with photos and videos of
locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, 'taking
into account military concerns.' That wording suggests that - beyond
being barred from physically visiting the site - the agency won't get
photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because
they have military significance. IAEA experts would normally take
environmental samples for evidence of any weapons development work, but
the agreement stipulates that Iranian technicians will do the sampling.
The sampling is also limited to only seven samples inside the building
where the experiments allegedly took place. Additional ones will be
allowed only outside of the Parchin site, in an area still to be
determined. 'Activities will be carried out using Iran's authenticated
equipment consistent with technical specifications provided by the
agency,' the agreement says. While the document says that the IAEA 'will
ensure the technical authenticity' of Iran's inspection, it does not say
how." http://t.uani.com/1PohPRd
Reuters:
"Britain will reopen its embassy in Iran this weekend nearly four
years after protesters ransacked the elegant ambassadorial residence and
burned the British flag. The move marks a thawing of ties with Iran since
it reached a nuclear deal with the United States, China, Russia, Germany,
France and Britain. 'The foreign secretary (Philip Hammond) will travel
to Iran to reopen our embassy there,' a British diplomatic source told
Reuters on Thursday. After more than a decade of casting the Islamic
Republic as a rogue power seeking to sow turmoil through the Middle East,
Britain has sought to improve ties with Iran, whose natural gas reserves
are larger even than Russia's. Hammond will travel to Iran this weekend
for the formal opening of the embassy on Sunday. He will take a small
group of business leaders, including representatives from Royal Dutch
Shell and other companies, with him on the trip, according to the source.
The British minister will have meetings with Iranian President Hassan
Rouhani, Ali Akbar Velayati, who is a senior adviser to Iranian Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and with Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad
Zarif. With the business delegation, Hammond will meet the Iranian
ministers of industries and business, petroleum and transport... Iranian
protesters stormed two British diplomatic compounds in Tehran in November
2011, smashing windows, torching a car and burning the British flag in
protest against sanctions imposed by London. http://t.uani.com/1J7SNBS
Reuters:
The secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council (SNSC)
indicated on Thursday that it has nearly finished examining Tehran's
landmark nuclear deal with world powers but will announce no conclusion
before the U.S. Congress does. The SNSC and parliament are both perusing
the text of the July 14 pact mandating Iran to curb its nuclear work in
exchange for a removal of sanctions, mirroring Congress which has the
right to approve or reject it in a vote to be taken by Sept. 17. 'We are
in the final stages of examining the deal in the Supreme National
Security Council,' SNSC secretary Ali Shamkhani was quoted as saying by
the Tasnim news agency. 'The results will be announced around the same
time that the P5+1 announces theirs,' he was quoted as saying by the
state news agency IRNA, referring to the six global powers that reached
the diplomatic breakthrough with the Islamic Republic... Iran's
parliament voted in June, before the deal was struck, to give the SNSC
the right to issue a verdict on it. But some lawmakers still insist on
their right to review the text, and parliament on Wednesday appointed 15
MPs to an ad hoc committee to do just that." http://t.uani.com/1E749Jv
Nuclear Program
& Agreement
Reuters:
"The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief on Thursday rejected as 'a
misrepresentation' suggestions Iran would inspect its own Parchin
military site on the agency's behalf, an issue that could help make or
break Tehran's nuclear deal with big powers. Without International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmation that Iran is keeping promises enshrined
in the landmark July 14 nuclear accord, Tehran will not be granted
much-needed relief from international economic sanctions. Any indications
that Iran's part of the accord - strict limits on its atomic energy
program and explaining its past nuclear activity - cannot be directly
verified by the IAEA could make it harder for President Barack Obama to
secure crucial ratification by the U.S. Congress by a Sept. 17 deadline.
According to data given to the IAEA by some member countries, Iran may
have conducted hydrodynamic tests at Parchin in the past to assess how
specific materials react under high pressure, such as in a nuclear
explosion. An unconfirmed Associated Press report had cited a draft
document suggesting the IAEA would not send its own inspectors into Parchin
but would instead get data from Iran on the site. 'I am disturbed by
statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear
inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we
will undertake this important verification work,' IAEA Director-General
Yukiya Amano said in an unusually strongly worded statement on
Thursday... 'I can state that the arrangements are technically sound and
consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise
our safeguards standards in any way,' Amano said." http://t.uani.com/1MzWnJF
Free Beacon:
"Two leading U.S. senators are calling on the Obama administration
to release secret letters to foreign governments assuring them that they
will not be legally penalized for doing business with the Iranian
government, according to a copy of a letter sent Wednesday to the State
Department and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. Sens. Mark Kirk
(R., Ill.) and Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) disclosed in the letter to the
State Department that U.S. lawmakers have been shown copies of several
letters sent by the Obama administration to the Chinese, German, French,
and British governments assuring them that companies doing business with
Iran will not come under penalty. The Obama administration is purportedly
promising the foreign governments that if Iran violates the parameters of
a recently inked nuclear accord, European companies will not be
penalized, according to the secret letters. Congress became aware of
these promises during closed-door briefings with the Obama administration
and through documents filed by the administration under a law requiring
full disclosure of all information pertaining to the accord." http://t.uani.com/1TVQxZ9
Bloomberg:
"Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's refusal to publicly back
July's nuclear deal is encouraging conservative lawmakers who oppose the
pact. With an eye also on parliamentary elections next year, hardliners
have jumped on Khamenei's lukewarm endorsements, calling for the
agreement to be approved by parliament, rather than the National Security
Council as President Hassan Rouhani favors. That would provide them with
an opportunity to poke holes in the accord. 'Iran's legal procedure for
approving the nuclear deal remains unclear,' says Mehdi Khalaji, an Iran
analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 'The supreme
leader refuses to explicitly state not only his own judgment on the deal,
but also which institution should make the formal decision of approval or
rejection.' In his latest comments on 17 August, Khamenei, Iran's
ultimate arbiter, suggested the accord might not even become law in Iran,
as he restated his opposition to greater US influence in the Islamic
Republic." http://t.uani.com/1Jt9gGs
Politico:
"The Obama administration is planning to name Stephen Mull, the
outgoing U.S. ambassador to Poland, as lead coordinator for implementing
the Iran nuclear deal - a massive task that could be highly scrutinized
in light of partisan wrangling over the agreement. An administration official
said Mull, who joined the foreign service in 1982, is the State
Department pick, though the choice is not yet official. Mull's
appointment could both please and disappoint close observers of the
process: The fact that there will be a lead coordinator - administration
officials refuse to call it a 'czar' - is something many advocates of the
deal support, but Mull may not be as well-known a figure as some had
hoped." http://t.uani.com/1LmWFFb
Congressional Vote
New Yorker:
"On the evening of August 6th, when the news broke that Senator
Charles Schumer would vote against the Iran accord, the Democratic Senate
leader, Harry Reid, was as stunned as the rest of his caucus... Now,
because of Schumer's position as presumptive leader, Reid felt that Schumer
should have informed him of his decision on the Iran deal, given its
importance, according to a Senate aide. Still, when a White House
official called Reid that night to ask if he would announce his support
of the deal to counter Schumer's opposition, Reid refused, saying he
wasn't ready, a close associate said... More than a week has passed, and
Reid still wonders why Schumer decided to announce his opposition when he
did. Schumer was the first Democratic senator to oppose the deal. And it
was his timing, perhaps even more than the substance of his decision,
that has upset his pro-deal colleagues and, most unmistakably, the White
House. Josh Earnest, the President's press secretary, said he wouldn't be
surprised if some members of the Senate Democratic caucus 'consider the
voting record of those who say they would like to lead the caucus,' and
he went on to liken Schumer's decision to oppose the Iran deal to his
support for the Iraq War, in 2003." http://t.uani.com/1PBODqu
Bloomberg:
"As Cory Booker makes up his mind on the Iran nuclear deal, the New
Jersey senator must choose between two close friends and political
supporters: President Barack Obama and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. Booker may
be in the toughest spot of any Senate Democrat as he faces a barrage of
advertising, lobbying and personal appeals before congressional votes in
mid-September on the deal between Iran and six world powers. The only
black Democrat in the Senate, Booker has close ties to Obama and has
supported him on most issues. But he's also close to Jewish leaders and
political contributors in his state opposed to the deal Obama's
administration negotiated. That includes Boteach, a controversial rabbi
he's known since he studied at Oxford University in the U.K. more than 20
years ago... 'I want to hear all angles on the deal and deeply weigh its
short and long-term implications before making a decision,' Booker said
in a statement. 'I am holding this deal to a very high standard.'" http://t.uani.com/1J7VtQ9
Military
Matters
CNN:
"U.S. officials are concerned that Russia is moving ahead with plans
to sell Iran a sophisticated missile defense system that could undercut
Washington's ability to challenge Tehran's airspace. The advanced S-300
air defense system would mean that U.S. or Israeli warplanes likely
couldn't sneak into Iranian airspace if they wanted to bomb Iran's
nuclear facilities. Bombing the S-300 radar and missiles first would give
the Iranians a warning that an attack would be on the way. 'We've been
making very clearly our objections to any sale of this missile system to
Iran, as I said, for quite some time, and we'll continue to monitor it
closely,' State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Tuesday." http://t.uani.com/1NnQP6K
Sanctions
Relief
Reuters:
"Norway's DNO ASA, which has operations across the Middle East,
would like to do business in Iran if sanctions against the country are
lifted as planned, the energy company said on Thursday. Oslo-listed DNO
has its biggest operation in Iraqi Kurdistan, where it produced about
153,000 barrels of oil per day in the second quarter. It is also present
in Oman, Yemen, Somaliland, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates. 'Iran
offers interesting opportunities at such time as international sanctions
are removed,' the company said. 'DNO (is) uniquely well placed as it
operates oil and gas projects, both onshore and offshore, in three
neighbouring countries with specific synergies and opportunities.' The
firm's technology and experience could be relevant to increase output
from Iran's existing fields and for developing new ones, it said." http://t.uani.com/1hsAWz9
Human Rights
WSJ:
"The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday rebutted charges of spying
against one of its reporters that appeared recently in Iranian media
outlets. The stories called Farnaz Fassihi a secret go-between for the
Obama administration when it sought to make contact with the Iranian
opposition Green Movement in 2009. The movement rose to prominence and
sparked mass demonstrations following Iran's disputed presidential
election that year. The Journal said the allegations 'are completely
false, outlandish and irresponsible.' ... Several other journalists of
Iranian descent have fled the country or been jailed in recent years
after being accused of spying. Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian
currently is in jail in Tehran awaiting a verdict on charges that
included espionage. 'The threat for dual nationals is very enormous' when
it comes to covering Iran, said Omid Memarian, an Iranian journalist who
has written for American publications including Politico and the Daily
Beast. The stories accusing Ms. Fassihi first appeared Aug. 12 in three
conservative Iranian newspapers including Kayhan, the hard-line flagship
widely viewed as a mouthpiece for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
A sidebar accompanying the front-page story called Ms. Fassihi a link
between U.S. officials and Iran's 'seditious leaders.' Kayhan's article
said that because of her dual nationality, Ms. Fassihi 'could come and go
covertly and as an ordinary citizen.'" http://t.uani.com/1E74wnF
Daily Mail:
"An Afghan military interpreter denied refuge by Britain has been
executed trying to reach the West. Known to the UK soldiers he served
with as Popal, he was tortured and murdered after being captured in Iran.
Another four interpreters are feared to have suffered the same fate while
using people smugglers to flee the Taliban. Their families believe
the missing men may have been killed by the Iranian authorities or by
militias. 'Anyone they find who has worked for Britain or allied forces
is tortured and killed, the smugglers have told us, because they are seen
as Western spies,' said a source who served with British forces alongside
Popal." http://t.uani.com/1NHDQdb
Opinion &
Analysis
WSJ Editorial:
"Three more Senators have declared against President Obama's Iran
nuclear deal in recent days, and don't be surprised if more follow after
Wednesday's bombshell from the Associated Press. The news service reports
that Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors at the secret Parchin
nuclear site under its secret side agreement with the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). This is a new one in the history of arms control.
Parchin is the military complex long suspected as the home of Iran's
nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile development. The IAEA has sought
access to Parchin for more than a decade, and U.S. officials have said
the deal requires Iran to come clean about Parchin by agreeing on an
inspections protocol with the IAEA by the end of this year. But that spin
started to unravel three weeks ago with the discovery that the Parchin
inspections were part of a secret side agreement between the IAEA and
Iran-not between Iran and the six negotiating countries. Secretary of
State John Kerry has said he hasn't read the side deal, though his
negotiating deputy Wendy Sherman told MSNBC that she 'saw the pieces of
paper' but couldn't keep them. IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano has
told Members of the U.S. Congress that he's bound by secrecy and can't
show them the side deals. That secrecy should be unacceptable to
Congress-all the more so after the AP dispatch. The news service says it
has seen a document labelled 'separate arrangement II.' The document says
Iran will provide the IAEA with photos and locations that the IAEA says
are linked to Iran's weapons work, 'taking into account military
concerns.' In other words, the country that lied for years about its
nuclear weapons program will now be trusted to come clean about those
lies. And trusted to such a degree that it can limit its self-inspections
so they don't raise 'military concerns' in Iran. Keep in mind that the
side deal already excludes a role for the U.S., and that the IAEA lacks
any way to enforce its side deal since it has no way of imposing
penalties for violations. Iran has also already ruled out any role for
American or Canadian nationals on the inspection teams. Why not cut out
the IAEA middle man and simply let Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran's
Quds Force, sign a personal affadavit? ... The news raises further doubts
about a nuclear pact that is already leaking credibility. Unfettered access
to Parchin is crucial to understanding Iran's past nuclear work, which is
essential to understanding how close Iran has come to getting the bomb.
Without that knowledge it's impossible to know if Iran really is a year
or more away from having the bomb, which is the time period that Mr.
Kerry says is built into the accord and makes it so worth doing. Earlier
this year President Obama signed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act,
which says Congress must receive all documents related to the deal,
including any 'entered into or made between Iran and any other parties.'
That has to mean the IAEA. By the way, the reference in the IAEA document
to 'separate arrangement II' suggests there may be more than one side
deal. Congress should insist on seeing every such side deal or else pass
a resolution of disapproval on the principle that it can't possibly
approve a deal whose complete terms it hasn't even been allowed to
inspect... Public opposition is also growing. And it will increase as
Americans learn that the deal's inspections include taking Iran's word
about its previous weaponization work at its most crucial nuclear-weapons
site." http://t.uani.com/1E7btFy
Ray Takeyh in the
Miami Herald: "On August 5, President Obama took to
the podium at American University to justify his controversial nuclear
pact with Iran. The location was chosen with seeming care, as over five
decades earlier, John F. Kennedy delivered a key speech at the same
Washington school calling for arms control agreements with another
adversary, the Soviet Union. That's where the similarities end. In terms
of the tone of the speech and content of policies, the two presidents
could not have been more different. Kennedy's speech was a lofty
statement of American idealism. He advised his countrymen that given the
accumulated nuclear arsenals of the two superpowers, they should embrace
dialogue and compromise. He reached out to his domestic detractors,
stressing, 'Let us re-examine our attitude towards the cold war...we are
not here, distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment.' In
contrast, Obama's speech was truculent and accusatory. He claimed that
Iranian hardliners who routinely chant 'Death to American' are 'making
common cause with the Republican caucus.' To be clear, Iranian hardliners
are terrorists such as the commander of the Quds Brigade Qassim Soleimani
and Holocaust deniers such as the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. To claim
any association between such unsavory actors and American legislators was
provocative and unwise. Beyond style, the content of the two presidents'
arms control policies also differ. Obama insists that the anytime,
anywhere inspections cannot be achieved short of war as was done with
Iraq in 1991. And yet as early as 1961, the Kennedy administration
stressed that any viable arms control accord must entail 'inspectors
having unrestrained access everywhere without veto for full
verification.' In contemporary parlance, Kennedy maintained that anytime,
anywhere access was necessary for effective verification. Beyond its lax
inspection regime, the agreement with Iran suffers from other significant
shortcomings. The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)
concedes a vast enrichment capacity. Iran maintains much of its existing
infrastructure while embarking on an accelerated research and development
program. Even more unsettling is the fact that the accord's most
important restrictions fade after a decade. At that time, the Islamic
Republic can embark on an industrialized nuclear program not that
dissimilar to that of Japan. Should Iran be in possession of such a vast
infrastructure, there is no inspection modality that could detect its
dash to a bomb in a timely manner. The agreement essentially dismantles
the economic sanctions architecture that a bipartisan coalition spent a
decade putting together. The notion that such an intricate sanctions
regime can be simply snapped back and that trade dollars flowing into
Iran can be reversed is delusional. It is neither unwarranted nor
unprecedented for Congress to reject international accords or demand
significant revisions to them. Congress in its history has rejected 130
agreements transacted by the Executive branch and has demanded that 200
other accords be modified before gaining approval. The Obama administration
itself renegotiated a nuclear agreement after congressional objections.
In 2009, the United States and United Arab Emirates (UAE) concluded a
nuclear accord. Many in Congress raised concerns that the agreement was
not sufficiently rigorous, causing the Obama White House to renegotiate
the accord in May 2009 with the stipulation that UAE would forgo a
domestic enrichment capability. Given that the JCPOA is a political
agreement whose obligations are voluntarily undertaken, it seems a
suitable candidate for similar congressional treatment." http://t.uani.com/1LmZ8za
Robert Satloff in
The American Interest: "Why has the Obama
Administration-in public, at least-rejected all suggestions to improve
the Iran nuclear agreement? Last week, I proposed five specific improvements
to the Iran deal. These included ways to repair flaws in the process of
penalizing Iran for possible violations; to raise the cost to Iran of
transferring sanction relief funds to terrorist proxies; and to
strengthen deterrence so Iran thinks twice before exploiting sunset
clauses in the deal to sprint toward a nuclear weapon at a later date.
Every one of these suggestions could be achieved either by unilateral
U.S. action or coordination with our European allies. In other words, I
argued that the agreement can be substantially improved without reopening
its contents for renegotiation. I don't claim originality for these
ideas. Many were included in two statements issued weeks ago by members
of The Washington Institute's bipartisan Iran Study Group (here and
here). My contribution was to pull them together and present them as
evidence that one does not have to believe in unicorns, as Secretary of
State Kerry suggested, to believe there are legitimate ways to improve
the Iran deal. So far, however, the Obama Administration has doubled-down
on the proposition that any improvement is a 'fantasy.' With less than a
month to the congressional vote, and public skepticism about the
agreement growing, there has been no public recognition that the President
considers any improvements possible, let alone preferable. On the face of
it, this is understandable. After all, the White House does not need to
win votes in either the House or the Senate; it merely needs to lose
votes by less-than-landslide margins. With the yardstick for victory so
low, success may come solely with solidifying core supporters. This was
most likely the reason for the President's rouse-the-base,
my-way-or-the-highway speech at American University. But this approach
doesn't really take account of the substantial number of senators and
congressmen who remain uneasy about the deal, despite efforts by
advocates to lock up 'yes' votes as early as possible. For many of these
still-undecideds, a comprehensive set of improvements would likely push
them into the 'approval' camp. Conversely, the more time that passes with
the Administration circling the wagons and refusing to pursue sensible
correctives, the more likely some will just say 'no.' So, why hasn't the
Administration taken any serious steps to address constructive critics of
the agreement? In my view, there are seven possible reasons." http://t.uani.com/1EFbxaf
|
|
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