|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
Politico:
"Behind the showdown between President Barack Obama and Congress
over the Iran nuclear deal is a second dispute that could cost the White
House allies it needs to ensure the agreement survives: Whether and when
to renew a key law that imposes sanctions on Tehran. Under the nuclear
deal, Obama would suspend the sanctions imposed by Congress, but the
statutes can stay on the books as a safeguard in case Iran reneges and
the president needs to 'snap' the sanctions back. But the law in
question, the Iran Sanctions Act, is set to expire in late 2016. Skeptics
of the Iran deal, including Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Bob Menendez
(D-N.J.) want to go ahead and renew ISA now through 2026. They argue that
extending the act would send a signal that the U.S. is serious about its
willingness to 'snap back' sanctions if Iran fails to dismantle much of
its nuclear program or otherwise cheats. The White House, however, is
urging lawmakers to hold off. The official argument, made in
congressional hearings and other forums by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew
and fellow administration officials, is that it's 'premature' to extend
ISA now. When pressed to expand on their reasoning, administration
officials go only slightly beyond that talking point, saying they support
eventual renewal of ISA, but not now. What's left unstated is the
possibility that Iran would view a renewal of ISA as a provocation -
perhaps grounds to allege the U.S. is violating the agreement before it's
even fully implemented - and that extending it could affect the political
dynamics in Tehran, where hardliners also oppose the deal. Regardless,
the administration's vague answers on ISA is puzzling many lawmakers and
risks squandering potential good will in Congress." http://t.uani.com/1N5FtUS
NYT:
"The State Department said Wednesday that a recent visit to Moscow
by the head of Iran's paramilitary Quds force had violated a United
Nations travel ban that has been imposed because of concerns about
Tehran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. 'We've raised this
travel with senior Russian Foreign Ministry officials,' said Mark Toner,
the deputy State Department spokesman. He added that Russia had not
responded to the American complaint, but he underscored that the United
States would ask the United Nations Security Council to investigate the
trip. 'We intend to work with the Security Council' to ensure that there
is 'a full, thorough, adequately run investigation, as well as sufficient
follow-up,' Mr. Toner said. The Iranian general at the heart of the
complaint is Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, an operative who has the backing
of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. General Suleimani has
been directing Iran's military support for President Bashar al-Assad of
Syria and for Shiite militias in Iraq, and is believed to be directing
Tehran's backing for Houthi rebels in Yemen. A Security Council
resolution adopted in 2007 calls for a travel ban on General Suleimani
and other Iranian officials because of their links to Iran's nuclear or
ballistic missile programs. That ban is to be lifted after eight years,
according to the accord that was negotiated last month on Iran's nuclear
program. But the fact that General Suleimani has traveled to Moscow has
added to worries among some American lawmakers about how rigorously the
new agreement, if it takes effect, might be enforced by Russia and other
nations." http://t.uani.com/1f9J4Cp
WashPost:
"Now that Chuck Schumer is openly opposed to the Iran deal, the
undecided lawmaker everyone should be watching is the junior senator from
Maryland. Mere months ago, Democrat Ben Cardin would likely never have
been considered the pendulum to swing such an historic vote. But the new
Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member has been thrust to
center stage as Congress debates the Iran agreement... Cardin is playing
the role of moderator in the congressional debate. He intends to remain
Mr. Neutral until after Labor Day - which is precisely when Congress will
vote on the Iran deal. 'As ranking member, he's able to reach out more
easily than other members, and so he's there to ask a question and get
answers for himself as well as others,' said Cardin's spokeswoman, Sue
Walitsky. 'But for him, every senator has to make this decision on their
own, and go through their own process.' ... He has broken with the
administration on foreign policy before - such as when Obama sought
Congress' authorization to use military force against the Islamic State earlier
this year, and in 2012, when Cardin pushed the Magnitsky Act through
Congress - legislation requiring Russia to maintain a list of human
rights abusers that Moscow responded to by banning American adoptions of
Russian children - over the president's objections." http://t.uani.com/1DQ0EqY
Congressional Vote
Politico:
"New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer stole the headlines and put
the White House on the defensive when he said he would vote against
President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran. But Obama's
backstop in the House, where the Democratic Caucus is dominated by
liberals, is holding firm... Obama needs at least 144 House Democrats to
stick by him to sustain a veto of any GOP legislation that would
undermine or dismantle the deal with Iran... So far, only nine House
Democrats have come out against the deal - but that number is likely to
edge up slightly by the time the House holds its September vote. And
Schumer's opposition is a setback, particularly given how tight the
Senate vote is expected to be... House lawmakers currently on record
opposing the deal include Steve Israel of New York - a leading Jewish
lawmaker - and Nita Lowey, Eliot Engel, Grace Meng and Kathleen Rice of
New York, Albio Sires of New Jersey, Ted Deutch of Florida and Juan
Vargas of California... Many lawmakers, including influential leaders,
are still keeping their positions quiet. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
(D-Calif) is leading the whip operation for the deal in the House but her
top lieutenants, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and Democratic Caucus Chairman
Xavier Becerra are both publicly undecided." http://t.uani.com/1JeUsLu
NYPost:
"Sen. Charles Schumer blasted the Iran nuclear deal as 'fatally
flawed' Tuesday, saying he doesn't trust European nations to conduct
thorough inspections of the sensitive facilities. In his most extensive comments
since announcing his opposition to the agreement last week, Schumer
questioned whether the inspections could be effective, and laid out a
litany of reasons why he thinks the deal won't hold. 'There are parts to
bomb making that don't involve nuclear isotopes. Even if you find nuclear
isotopes [through inspections], you don't know exactly what they are
doing,' he said. 'You know, the Europeans, once they have these economic
relationships with Iran - which we know they are very eager to have - are
going to be reluctant to ask for an inspection, so I was troubled by
that,' Schumer said after a speech at NYU. Schumer - the presumptive next
Senate Democratic leader and the only declared Democratic opponent to the
deal in the Senate - also labeled the 'snapback' provisions meant to
restore sanctions if Iran cheats 'complicated and awkward.' Schumer
nevertheless called his opposition, reached after high-pressure lobbying
on both sides, 'one of the most difficult decisions I've ever had to
make.'" http://t.uani.com/1DMQIPg
NYT:
"Some of the wealthiest and most powerful donors in American
politics, those for and against the accord, tried to get a word in with
Mr. Schumer. Now, approaching a vote on President Obama's most important
international priority, the fight is expanding, with tens of millions of
dollars flowing into ad campaigns, and contributors leveraging access to
undecided Democrats... The furious lobbying lays bare the volatile
politics of the Iran accord, which has already pitted Mr. Schumer, the likely
future leader of Senate Democrats, against the Democratic president. It
also reveals donors' divisions over the deal - and the extraordinary
access those donors have wielded to speak directly to lawmakers and their
top aides... Mr. Schumer said some Democrats are discussing ways to
pressure the administration to somehow toughen the deal on its own, but
he said he is not involved. He also stressed that while he has made
courtesy calls to some 30 senators on his decision, he is not trying to
influence their vote. 'There are some people out there who think I can
force colleagues to vote one way or the other,' he said. 'That is not how
the Senate works.'" http://t.uani.com/1DMFiLi
NYT:
"A bipartisan group of former senators and veterans is unveiling a
multimillion advertising campaign aimed at derailing President Obama's
nuclear agreement with Iran. American Security Initiative, which was
founded by former Senators Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Joseph I. Lieberman
of Connecticut, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, is
spending $6.2 million to blanket the airwaves in nine states... The
investment is being made in conjunction with a group called Veterans
Against the Deal, which has already been airing ads, and the campaign
will run through early September. Mr. Coleman and Mr. Chambliss are
Republicans; Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Bayh are Democrats. In an interview,
Michael Pregent, executive director of Veterans Against the Deal, said
his group's efforts would get a boost from the new partnership. He said
his effort began in response to criticisms from proponents of the deal
who have called some who are opposed to it 'warmongers.' ... Airing in
Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota,
Virginia and West Virginia, the ads are the latest effort by opponents of
President Obama's Iran policy to pressure lawmakers into voting against
the deal." http://t.uani.com/1WlN4lb
Sanctions
Relief
Reuters:
"Neutral Switzerland will officially lift on Thursday sanctions
against Iran that had been suspended since January 2014, the government
announced on Wednesday, citing a deal last month between Tehran and six
big powers to curb Iran's nuclear programme. 'The Federal Council
(government) wishes today's steps to be seen as a sign of its support for
the implementation of the nuclear agreement and its interest in deepening
bilateral relations with Iran,' a statement said... The Swiss sanctions
had banned trade in precious metals with Iranian state bodies and set
requirements to report trade in Iranian petrochemical products and the
transport of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products. Switzerland will
also introduce a new exemption clause that lets Berne implement U.N.
Security Council resolutions on Iran. The government said Switzerland wished
to 'promote a broad political and economic exchange with Iran' but would
monitor implementation of the nuclear deal. 'Should implementation of the
agreement fail, the Federal Council reserves the right to reintroduce the
lifted measures,' it said." http://t.uani.com/1L8fysq
Reuters:
"Indian refiners have got the green light to prepare to pay Iran
$1.4 billion in oil dues, two sources with knowledge of the issue said,
in one of the first signs that last month's nuclear deal is helping
Tehran unlock frozen funds... Finance Secretary Rajiv Mehrishi asked
refiners this month to prepare to pay Tehran two installment of $700
million, part of the money owed for oil imports, said the sources, who
declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue... Mehrishi
last month led a delegation of officials from the Reserve Bank of India
and state-run UCO Bank to Tehran to discuss oil payments... Indian
refiners Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Essar Oil, Indian Oil
Corp, Hindustan Petroleum Corp and HPCL-Mittal Energy Ltd (HMEL) together
owe Iran more than $6.5 billion." http://t.uani.com/1KjkWG4
Terrorism
AP:
"Bahrain's chief of police says five suspects with links to Iran
have been arrested in connection with a bombing last month that killed two
police and wounded six others. Maj. Gen. Tariq al-Hassan says
investigators have connected the suspects to Iran's Revolutionary Guard,
as well as the Iranian-armed and funded Lebanese Hezbollah group. The
statement by Bahrain's Interior Ministry was carried by the state-run
news agency Thursday. The July 28 bombing targeted a bus carrying
policemen near a primary school south of the capital in an area called
Sitra." http://t.uani.com/1Nd7xov
Opinion &
Analysis
Rep. Alcee
Hastings (D-FL) in The Palm Beach Post: "When the
House of Representatives reconvenes in September, one of our first
priorities will be to address the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA) to curb Iran's nuclear program. After careful review, I have
decided that I cannot support this deal. The goal of the recently
concluded negotiations was to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon. The negotiators worked diligently, but in the end, the JCPOA
allows Iran to remain a nuclear threshold state while simultaneously
reaping the benefits of relief from international sanctions. Under the
JCPOA, Iran is limited to approximately 6,100 first-generation IR-1
centrifuges for a period of 10-15 years. However, after this time passes,
Iran will again have the ability to pursue its nuclear program with more
advanced centrifuges. Iran simply needs to be patient and it will once
again have the ability to enrich uranium. Just last month, the U.N.
Security Council agreed to Resolution 2231, endorsing the JCPOA. Among
other things, the resolution lifts the ban on conventional arms sales to
Iran after five years, and gives Iran the authority to restart its
nuclear-capable ballistic missile development program within eight years.
This poses a threat to the U.S. and to our allies. These provisions, coupled
with a mere delay of Iran's nuclear program, will give other regional
powers a clear window of opportunity to strengthen or create their own
weapons programs. As conventional weapons shipments to Iran resume, its
neighbors will feel obligated to bolster their own security. All the
while, billions of dollars will be injected into the Iranian economy as
sanctions are lifted. Some portion of this money is likely to be directed
toward state-sponsored terrorist groups, such as the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah, Houthi and Hamas. We must maintain a
strong sanctions regime - to do otherwise is to give up our leverage.
Sanctions are what brought Iran to the table, and they depend on
large-scale international cooperation and compliance... The provisions of
the agreement that allow sanctions to 'snap back' are of particular
concern. This process could take well over two months and is limited to
'significant' violations of the deal (the JCPOA fails to define what
qualifies as significant). Iran could undermine the agreement in ways
that would be nearly impossible to stop. What's more troubling, the
agreement imposes a process that can take up to 24 days before inspectors
gain access to any undeclared nuclear sites discovered in the future.
This delay could provide Iran with substantial opportunity to hide any
missile or nuclear activity... I will also introduce legislation on Sept.
8 that authorizes the sitting president or his successors to use military
force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. Iran's
sincerity in forgoing the procurement of a nuclear weapon makes these
steps, in my opinion, an absolute necessity - regardless of how Congress
votes." http://t.uani.com/1f9NBER
Ruth Marcus in
WashPost: "President Obama says those who oppose the
Iran nuclear deal are either ideological or illogical. I support the
deal, yet I think this assessment is incorrect and unfair. It diminishes
the president's case for congressional approval. That case is strong but
not overwhelming; it is not, to use a loaded phrase, a slam dunk.
Reasonable minds can - and do - differ on whether to back it. Obama once
understood, even celebrated, this gray zone of difficult policy choices.
He was a man who took pains to recognize and validate the legitimate
concerns of those on the opposite side of nearly any complex debate. The
new Obama, hardened and embittered - the one on display in his American
University speech last week and in the follow-up spate of interviews -
has close to zero tolerance for those who reach contrary conclusions...
This Obama will brook no disagreement, accommodate no uncertainty as to
the correct result. 'So this deal is not just the best choice among
alternatives - this is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever
negotiated,' he said at American University. This Obama does not grant
the legitimacy of his opponents' concerns; he questions their bona fides
in expressing them. 'Many of the same people who argued for the war in
Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal,' he observed.
And he misleadingly overstates the case when he contends that the deal
'permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.' Yes, in the
dictionary sense of 'formally forbid by law, rule, or other authority.'
But not in the actual sense of stopping Iran from obtaining a weapon if
it is determined to do so once the agreement expires... The best argument
for the deal is, simultaneously, the most infuriatingly circular: Support
this agreement because at this point no other alternative is or can foreseeably
be available... It leaves no space for those who have legitimate concerns
about the deal - who worry about the billions of dollars freed up for
terrorists; who suspect that the negotiators gave in too soon on the
timeline for Iran resuming nuclear proliferation; who are concerned that
the inspection regimen remains too porous or doubt the real-world
efficacy of snapback sanctions. You don't have to be an ideologue, or an
idiot, to have serious qualms." http://t.uani.com/1Ep0dPk
WSJ Editorial Board:
"The U.S. Congress still hasn't voted on the nuclear deal with Iran,
but European companies are already rushing to invest in the Islamic
Republic. Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni last week led a
business delegation to Tehran, where he told his hosts that 'our two
countries can work together in the fields of trade, commerce and
economy,' according to Iranian media. The same week, Italian investment
bank Mediobanca signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran's Economy
Ministry to facilitate future trade between Iran and Italy. Italy's
Development Ministry and Servizi Assicurativi del Commercio Estero, or
SACE, the Italian export-credit agency, also signed up. Italian exports
to a postsanctions Iran could see a €3 billion ($3.3 billion) boost over
the next three years, according to SACE. As notable, Italian industrial
giant Finmeccanica signed a €500 million contract to develop a power
plant in Iran. Finmeccanica's Iranian counterpart in the deal is Ghadir
Investment Co. That should raise eyebrows in Washington, since the U.S.
Treasury in 2013 identified Ghadir as one of several firms that form 'a
major network of front companies controlled by Iran's leadership.' 'Even
as economic conditions in Iran deteriorate,' Treasury Under Secretary
David Cohen said at the time, 'Iranian leaders profit from a shadowy
network of off-the-books front companies.' Presiding over the network is
Execution of Imam Khomeini's Order, an entity that according to a 2013
Treasury press release 'has made tens of billions of dollars' by, among
other things, confiscating 'properties in Iran that were owned by
Iranians not living in Iran full-time'-in other words, political
expropriation. EIKO is at the heart of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's
financial empire... As Foundation for Defense of Democracies sanctions
expert Emanuele Ottolenghi says, 'The plant deal, inked well before the
[nuclear] deal even begins to be implemented, shows that U.S. sanctions
can no longer deter global business from signing huge deals in Iran, even
with the Supreme Leader's business empire.' It's a helpfully timed
warning as Congress continues to debate the deal." http://t.uani.com/1L8bhFk
Orde Kittrie in
WSJ: "President Obama and Secretary of State John
Kerry claim that Congress has only two options for the Iran nuclear
agreement: Approve it as is, or block it, and war results. Last week Sen.
Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) recommended a third option, to renegotiate the
agreement. Noting the Iran deal's many weaknesses, Mr. Schumer called for
the U.S. government to strengthen sanctions and 'pursue the hard-trodden
path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.' This is a
nonstarter for the administration. Mr. Obama warns that failure to
approve the deal as is means that America will lose its 'credibility as a
leader of diplomacy,' indeed 'as the anchor of the international system.'
Mr. Kerry asserts that refusing to approve the deal would be inconsistent
with 'the traditional relationship' that has existed 'between the
executive and Congress.' Nonetheless, Congress has flatly rejected
international agreements signed by the executive branch at least 130
times in U.S. history. Twenty-two treaties were voted down. According to
1987 and 2001 Congressional Research Service reports, the Senate has
permanently blocked at least 108 other treaties by refusing to vote on
them. Moreover, the 1987 CRS report and an earlier study in the American
Journal of International Law note that more than 200 treaties agreed by
the executive branch were subsequently modified with Senate-required
changes before receiving Senate consent and finally entering into force
(examples below). In the case of treaties, as the Senate website
explains, the Senate may 'make its approval conditional' by including in
the resolution of ratification amendments, reservations, declarations,
and understandings (statements that clarify or elaborate agreement
provisions but do not alter them). 'The president and the other countries
involved must then decide whether to accept the conditions . . . in the legislation,
renegotiate the provisions, or abandon the treaty.' The Iran Nuclear
Agreement Review Act, which Mr. Obama signed in May, does not contain a
provision for approval subject to conditions. However, a resolution of
disapproval or separate legislation could specify what changes would be
needed to meet congressional requirements. Since Congress can under the
law reject the nuclear agreement outright, Iran and our negotiating
partners should not be surprised if Congress takes the less drastic step
of returning it to the president for renegotiation. The historical
precedents for Congress rejecting, or requiring changes to, agreements
involve treaties or other legally binding international agreements. The
Iran deal, formally titled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, is
unsigned and not legally binding. Mr. Kerry has repeatedly referred to it
as a 'political agreement.' Nonbinding, unsigned political agreements
receive less deference and are considered more flexible than treaties or
other legally binding international agreements. Congress should be
comfortable sending one back for renegotiation. Several treaties that the
Senate required be modified before ratification were with the Soviet
Union. For example, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty and the Peaceful
Nuclear Explosion Treaty, both of which entered into force in 1990, had
been blocked by senators who insisted on new provisions enhancing the
U.S. ability to verify Soviet compliance. The Senate consented to
ratification only after the two treaties were each augmented by new
U.S.-Soviet side agreements making it easier for the U.S. to detect
Soviet cheating. These renegotiations succeeded despite the fact that the
Soviet Union, with its nuclear-armed missiles pointed at U.S. cities, had
far more leverage than Iran does now." http://t.uani.com/1INBSEy
Eli Lake in
Bloomberg: "In the final days of the Iran
negotiations in Vienna, America's European partners asked Secretary of
State John Kerry for a favor. They wanted a letter from Kerry promising
that the U.S. Treasury Department would consult European companies on
what kinds of investment in Iran would be permissible after U.N.
sanctions were lifted. U.S. and European diplomats involved in the
negotiations tell me that the issue had been discussed on and off in
negotiations throughout the talks that began at the end of 2013, but that
the request for an explicit letter didn't come up until it appeared Iran
was willing to agree to the nuclear bargain. The issue is important
because U.S. secondary sanctions, which punish foreign companies that do
business with Iran's banks, oil sector and other parts of its economy,
will remain on the books. Obama has promised only to waive the
enforcement of those sanctions when and if Iran complies with its
obligations to limit and provide transparency for its declared nuclear
program. European governments are nervous that their banks and companies
could be caught off guard if a future U.S. president decided to snap back
sanctions for a violation, or simply resume enforcement of the sanctions
Obama stopped enforcing. At the same time, European diplomats tell me
that Iran must be shown some economic benefits for its nuclear
obligations if there is any chance for the deal's tough monitoring
provisions to last. Kerry ultimately complied with the request from the
Europeans and sent private letters to the British, French and German
foreign ministers promising that the Treasury Department would work with
European companies to make them aware of new Iran regulations after a
deal. The administration provided copies of those letters last month to
Congress as part of a set of 18 documents on the Iran deal and its
interpretations. On the surface Kerry's assurances would not seem
controversial. The Treasury Department under Obama and his predecessor
has warned banks, insurance companies and other foreign concerns that do
business with Iran that they risk being barred from U.S. financial
markets. When many international sanctions begin to be lifted, it would
stand to reason that the Treasury Department would inform these entities
of the new regulations and enforcement policy, particularly since the
Obama administration has pledged to keep enforcing less stringent
sanctions against Iran for its human rights abuses and support for
terrorism. But the letters also raise the troubling prospect, for the
Iran deal's critics, that the U.S. government will now be obliged to help
assure nervous markets and companies that investment in Iran is a safe
bet. Critics of the deal see evidence of this already, in a draft
statement -- also provided by the administration last month to Congress
-- to be made public when the International Atomic Energy Agency
certifies Iran has met its obligations promised in the nuclear agreement.
Members of Congress and Congressional staffers who have reviewed that
statement tell me that it promises the U.S. government will give notice
and consult with governments if the U.S. chooses to impose 'snap back'
sanctions in the event of an Iranian violation, to avoid any surprises
and minimize the prospect that foreign companies would be unaware they
could be sanctioned. 'We are not putting out a statement saying we are on
these guys like a hawk,' Juan Zarate, an expert on terrorist financing at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former deputy
national security adviser to George W. Bush, told me. 'The danger here is
we are having to reassure markets and actors that it's OK to do business
with Iran without addressing the underlying threats and risks of Iranian
behavior, such as support for terrorism.'" http://t.uani.com/1JVNMAN
Emily Landau in
Times of Israel: "The recent letter of support sent
to President Obama for his Iran deal secured last month - signed by 29
scientists, including Nobel laureates - was obviously well-timed to lend
firmer scientific backing to what many regard as a severely flawed
nuclear deal. This is an impressive group of individuals, with
achievements that speak for themselves, and their opinions obviously
matter. Yet, the very fact of their scientific achievements does not mean
that their assessments of the deal are correct. Indeed, their collective
judgment of the Iran deal must be assessed on its merits. And in this
regard, unfortunately, more than anything else, the contents of the
letter echo the well-known talking points of the Obama administration,
and suffer from some of the same deficiencies. If this highly respected
group of scientists is not aware, for example, that the 24-day cap on
Iran's ability to delay an investigation into a facility suspected of
supporting clandestine activities could actually be much longer than
that, why would we attribute any more authority to this letter than to
other sources making similar arguments to support the deal? If the group
had scrutinized paragraphs 75-76 in the Access section - that are not
about science, but rather politics - they would have seen that Iran's
ability to play for time regarding inspections of suspicious military
facilities begins when the IAEA first submits its concerns, and waits for
Iran's clarification. The 24-day count begins only after that, if and
when the IAEA makes a request for access; but the preliminary phase has
no time limit. And there are additional dangerous ambiguities in the
deal. There are holes and loopholes and flaws that Iran can abuse for its
purposes. So when one assesses the deal, the scientific aspects are
certainly important, but that is not where the assessment ends. Rather,
there is a need to consider the history of dealing with Iran, and the
experience gained thereby. Iran has shown its determination not only to
hold on to its vast nuclear infrastructure and breakout capability, but
continues its highly aggressive attitude toward the US and the Middle
East. Moreover, Iran has over the years perfected tactics of playing for
time, and has made it very clear that it will not tolerate inspections at
its military sites where suspicions are that it has worked on a military
nuclear capability. If pressed on inspections in the coming years, Iran
will most likely continue to evade and play for time, and the deal
dangerously provides ample room for Iran to do so. Indeed, Iran might
very well be able to escape such inspections altogether. The ambiguous
language in this regard - 'implement the necessary means' - leaves us wondering
whether Iran will ultimately be forced to admit inspectors into its
facilities, or whether the language provides it a way out. And Iran's
emphatic rejection of such inspections gives no cause for complacency. So
can one really say - as the scientists do - that the deal provides
'effective challenge inspection for the suspected activities of greatest
concern'? Hardly... Finally, it is not clear what the scientists are
referring to when they say that the deal has 'more stringent constraints
than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework.' Do they mean
compared to the NPT? Well, that's not saying much. Or maybe they mean
compared to the deal struck with Libya in 2003? No, that couldn't be it
either, because that deal actually signaled a Libyan decision to reverse
course on all categories of WMD, and dealt with the nuclear realm at a
very initial stage. That would qualify as a good nonproliferation
agreement, a far cry from the current deal with Iran. As a vote of
support for the administration's talking points - the letter is fine. But
to be taken seriously as an authoritative judgment of the Iran deal -
that will 'advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East' -
then with all due respect to the signatories and their impressive scientific
achievements, there is no getting around the conclusion that it simply
doesn't make the cut." http://t.uani.com/1IKrqQw
|
|
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