|
|
|
Join UANI
Top Stories
Fox News:
"Russian, Syrian and Iranian military commanders have set up a
coordination cell in Baghdad in recent days to try to begin working with
Iranian-backed Shia militias fighting the Islamic State, Fox News has
learned. Western intelligence sources say the coordination cell includes
low-level Russian generals. U.S. officials say it is not clear whether
the Iraqi government is involved at the moment. Describing the arrival of
Russian military personnel in Baghdad, one senior U.S. official said,
'They are popping up everywhere.' The Russians already have been building
up their military presence in Syria, a subject expected to factor
prominently in a planned meeting between President Obama and Russian
President Vladimir Putin in New York Monday on the sidelines of the U.N.
General Assembly. While the U.S. also is fighting the Islamic State, the
Obama administration has voiced concern that Russia's involvement, at
least in Syria, could have a destabilizing effect." http://t.uani.com/1NPCTBw
WSJ:
"At the same time, Mr. Obama arrives in New York struggling to
advance U.S. relations with Iran beyond the breakthrough nuclear deal
reached this summer, with no meetings scheduled with that country's
leader. The contrasting dynamics underscore the uncertainties in U.S.
foreign policy at a time when Mr. Obama is seeking to make strides,
particularly on the crisis in Syria, with just over a year left in his
presidency... Mr. Obama plans to press Mr. Putin to help broker a
resolution to the 4½-year war in Syria that includes President Bashar
al-Assad relinquishing power and bringing Moscow into the U.S.-led fight
against Islamic State militants, White House officials said. Iran also is
a core component of any Syria resolution, and administration officials
hoped to quickly move to discussions with Tehran on that issue after
reaching the nuclear deal. But that effort seems stalled for now.
Secretary of State John Kerry will meet with Iranian Foreign Minister
Javad Zarif over the weekend. Administration officials have said Mr.
Obama is open to meeting with Iran's president. But the Iranians have
indicated to the U.S. that it won't happen, underscoring the difficulty
of redefining relations after decades of hostility. Mr. Rouhani arrived
in New York on Thursday with a mandate to convey the message that Iran is
open to the world, according to analysts and diplomats inside Iran. But
when it comes to the U.S., Iran is drawing a red line. Iran's Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said in speeches in the past month that
engaging with the U.S. beyond the nuclear topic is prohibited." http://t.uani.com/1FlnJCP
WSJ:
"Iran expects to be able to increase its oil exports by 500,000
barrels a day by late November or early December with sales to Asia, a
top Iranian oil official said Thursday, even before most western
sanctions would lift. By mid-2016, Iran expects that its exports will
exceed today's by 1 million barrels a day under that scenario, said Ali
Kardor, the chief of investment for the National Iranian Oil Company. 'We
are ready,' Mr. Kardor said, speaking on the sidelines of a conference
here in Geneva promoting business ties between Europe and Iran. The
timeline laid out by Mr. Kardor is faster than many analysts and market
participants believe Iran is capable of achieving... However, Iran
believes that exports will begin to Asian countries like China and South
Korea sooner than some in the West expected, Mr. Kardor said... The large
international oil companies that once worked in Iran won't be able to
enter into new contracts until early 2016 at the earliest, when sanctions
are expected to be lifted. Patrick Pouyanne, the chief executive of Total
SA, the French oil giant that was one of the biggest international firms
in Iran until sanctions, said in an interview that he wanted to return to
Iran-but it won't happen until well into 2016. 'There will be no
rush...It's a long process,' he said, ticking off the obstacles: the
lifting of American sanctions, EU curbs being relinquished and the work
of international nuclear inspectors being allowed by Iran." http://t.uani.com/1VdwTD3
Nuclear Program
& Agreement
AP:
"The head of the U.N. nuclear agency pushed back on Thursday against
critics questioning the wisdom of letting Iranian experts take samples
meant to help determine whether their own country clandestinely worked in
the past on atomic arms, saying he is convinced the process was
faultless. Yukiya Amano spoke to The Associated Press less than a week
after confirming that Iranians did the environmental sampling at a site
where such alleged experiments took place. Personnel from his
International Atomic Energy Agency normally do the work of swiping
equipment and sampling the soil and air at sites they suspect was used
for hidden nuclear activities. Noting that the Iranians were under
stringent IAEA monitoring, Amano then said he was confident 'so far' that
the samples were genuine. He appeared to go further on Thursday, however.
While declining to say how far his agency's laboratory analysis has gone,
he said he is 'very sure that ... the samples are authentic.' The alleged
test of explosive triggers for a nuclear bomb at the Parchin military
site is one of about a dozen suspected experiments linked to such a
weapon that the IAEA has been trying to probe for more than a decade.
Iran denies ever working on such arms and says its present nuclear
program is meant only to generate power and for science and
medicine." http://t.uani.com/1iPXI4L
Mehr (Iran):
"Spokesman of Parliament's Special Commission on JCPOA has rejected
the possibility of a meeting between IAEA chief and Iran's nuclear
scientists dubbing it as strictly forbidden. Pointing to Yukia Amano's
visit to Tehran and in response to Western media claim that he will hold
meetings with Iranian nuclear scientists, Seyyed Hossein Naghavi Hosseini
asserted that, 'as the Leader has explicitly warned that foreigners will
not be allowed to interrogate Iranian scientists, this issue will remain
a red line that cannot be crossed.' 'Based on the Leader's remarks, we
have announced our position to the Parliament and we would never change
our minds on this matter,' he added. Naghavi Hosseini further stated
that, 'no limit has been established for this ban and it has been
emphasized that no authority has the right to speak with or question our
scientists.'" http://t.uani.com/1MNB61b
Congressional
Action
Al-Monitor:
"A key Iran bill under discussion on Capitol Hill is being toned
down considerably amid criticism that its original version would doom the
international nuclear agreement. The legislation from Sen. Ben Cardin,
D-Md., no longer conflicts with US commitments to lift sanctions on
certain Iranian banks, according to a recent draft obtained by
Al-Monitor. The latest version also removes an aggressive commitment to
renew all sanctions on Iran and sweeps away an offer to provide Israel
with bunker-busting super-bombs known as massive ordnance penetrators.
While the revised version is all but certain to leave Iran hawks wanting
more, defenders of the deal still think it still goes too far. In particular,
they argue that its explicit call for 'expedited consideration' of
terrorism-related sanctions appears to violate the letter and spirit of
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed July 14... The
latest version of the Cardin bill still maintains that Iran should
receive 'no sanctions relief' until it meets its obligations regarding
'past and present outstanding issues' under the JCPOA. But the new draft
is not as expansive as the original in terms of the report that the
president must submit to Congress regarding the details of the IAEA's
monitoring. And it removes a requirement that the president make a
determination that all outstanding issues have been resolved." http://t.uani.com/1JsiOen
Sanctions Relief
FT:
"George Osborne ended a controversial visit to China on Thursday,
declaring that next year he wanted to take what might be Britain's
biggest-ever trade delegation to Iran. The chancellor told the Financial
Times he was prepared to take risks to boost the British economy, including
engaging with a Tehran regime that has only recently come in from the
cold. 'We can either sit on the sidelines, watch the world move ahead and
gradually decline - plenty of other countries are taking that path - or
we can get out there and plant our flag in the ground,' he said...
'Assuming that Iran honours the nuclear deal, and it's properly verified,
I think there will be growing potential to do business with Iran,' he
said. 'Next year I would love to lead a proper, big economic and trade
delegation to Iran.'" http://t.uani.com/1OX5ANI
AFP:
"Iranian and European business leaders gathered in Geneva Thursday
to explore the massive opportunities expected to open up when years of
biting sanctions against Tehran end, although experts warned huge challenges
remained. 'We're seeing a lot of activities and a lot of interest from
foreigners,' enthused Ramin Rabii, the head of Turquoise Partners, Iran's
largest managers of foreign portfolio investment on the Tehran stock
market. He told AFP he expected Iran's economy to grow at a rate of
between six and eight percent for the next decade after the sanctions are
fully lifted. Rabii was representing one of nearly 600 companies and
organisations taking part in the Europe-Iran Forum, among them French
industrial giant Alstom, Germany's number two power supplier RWE,
National Iranian Oil (NIOC), the Tehran Stock Exchange and Iran's central
bank. Held in a luxury hotel overlooking Lake Geneva, it was the first
international business conference of its kind since Iran and world powers
reached a historic nuclear deal in July... But even when the main
sanctions are lifted, experts say Iran will not be an El Dorado, given
the wealth of issues complicating the process of doing business: the
political risks and regional instability; Tehran's outdated legal system;
its restrictive labour laws and its lack of experience dealing with
international investors. Since a range of sanctions not linked to the
nuclear issue will remain in place, companies will also need learn what
is and is not permitted, and there is also the risk that sanctions could
be re-imposed." http://t.uani.com/1FyfaEE
Guardian:
"A Swiss company has opened an Airbnb-style accommodation service in
Iran, as more western firms seek business opportunities in the country
after a deal was reached to curb Tehran's nuclear programme in return for
sanctions relief. OrientStay, which began operating two weeks ago, lists
200 flats in nine cities including Iran's top tourist destination of
Isfahan. So far five foreign customers have reserved accommodation, two
of whom are currently visiting Iran. The site's director, Mehrzad Khoï,
is attending a two-day conference in Geneva in the hope of finding
further investment. Around 600 people have gathered at the Grand Hotel
Kempinski for the second Europe-Iran Forum." http://t.uani.com/1PBAvNF
Press TV (Iran):
"Germany's industrial gases maker Linde has waded into the race for
multibillion-dollar petrochemical projects in Iran, including LNG schemes
which Total, Royal Dutch Shell and Repsol banished under sanctions. Linde
Chief Executive Wolfgang Buchele has just returned from a visit to Tehran
where he said his company will 'definitely' transfer technology to Iran
to carry out petrochemical projects once sanctions are lifted on the country.
'We know that Iran's Ministry of Petroleum is about to make big
investments to develop the petrochemical sector. For our part, we are
definitely seeking to cooperate with Iranian companies on transfer of
technology after the annulment of sanctions,' the ministry's Shana news
agency quoted him as saying. Buchele reminded that Linde is 'one of the
biggest players in the global market' in the LNG industry, saying the
company is ready to resume its 'legitimate presence in Iran as soon as
Western sanctions are lifted', Shana added." http://t.uani.com/1Fj7dTR
Press TV (Iran):
"Messe Düsseldorf, one of the world's largest trade fair organizers,
has announced that it plans to organize Iran's biggest plastics show that
will be held next year. The Düsseldorf-based company that organizes the
world's largest plastics show - the K Trade Fair - among many other key
exhibitions says it will organize international exhibitor participation
in the Iran Plast fair which is scheduled to be held in Tehran April
13-17. 'The lifting of economic sanctions is expected to create a
significant boost to international trade relations with Iran,' the
company said. 'Experts anticipate a rising demand for machinery and
equipment, particularly for the plastics and rubber sector,' it added."
http://t.uani.com/1WlEodF
Terrorism
Free Beacon:
"The commander of Iran's army said on Tuesday that the Islamic
Republic would destroy Israel at all costs despite the recent nuclear
deal aimed at reining in the country's rogue behavior, according to
comments by these officials. Ataollah Salehi, commander of Iran's army,
said that no matter how many weapons are given to Israel, 'we are going
to destroy them,' according to comments reported in Iran's
state-controlled press and independently translated from Persian for the
Washington Free Beacon... 'Israel only barks, no matter how much weapons
are given to [it], we are going to destroy them, we will promise this
task will be done,' Salehi was quoted as saying by the Fars News Agency.
Salehi expressed pride in Iran's support for terrorist groups such as
Hamas and Hezbollah that seek the Jewish state's destruction. The
military leader also said that Iran has been directly responsible for
attacks on Israel. 'We are glad that we are in the forefront of executing
supreme leader's order to destroy the Zionist regime,' he said. 'They
have been hit by those supported by us [Iran] even though they have not
confronted us directly; if they confront us directly they will be
destroyed.'" http://t.uani.com/1JtwxRY
Syria Conflict
NOW Lebanon:
"A leading pro-Hezbollah daily claimed on Tuesday that the party has
joined a new counter-terror alliance with Moscow and that Russia will
take part in military operations alongside the Syrian army and Hezbollah.
Al-Akhbar's editor-in-chief Ibrahim al-Amin wrote that secret talks
between Russia, Iran, Syria and Iraq had resulted in the birth of the new
alliance, which he described as 'the most important in the region and the
world for many years.' 'The agreement to form the alliance includes
administrative mechanisms for cooperation on [the issues of] politics and
intelligence and [for] military [cooperation] on the battlefield in
several parts of the Middle East, primarily in Syria and Iraq,' the
commentator said, citing well-informed sources. 'The parties to the
alliance are the states of Russia, Iran, Syria and Iraq, with Lebanon's
Hezbollah as the fifth party,' he also said, adding that the joint-force
would be called the '4+1 alliance' - a play on words referring to the P5+1
world powers that negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran." http://t.uani.com/1iOL5XC
Anti-Americanism
Press TV (Iran):
"A senior Iranian cleric says the US is wrong to think that
relations will be restored between Tehran and Washington following a
recent agreement between Iran and the P5+1 countries. 'The US wants to
say that, following [the conclusion of] the JCPOA, the ice has been
broken between the two countries; but that is not the case,' Ayatollah
Seyyed Ahmad Khatami said in reference to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action clinched between Iran and the P5+1 on July 14. He made the remark
in a sermon following the Eid al-Adha prayers in the Iranian capital of
Tehran on Thursday. 'We are enemies with the US because the US supports
the usurping Zionist regime (Israel),' he said. He also stressed that all
sanctions against the Islamic Republic must be removed - and not
suspended - under the JCPOA." http://t.uani.com/1NYynC9
Foreign Affairs
Reuters:
"Saudi Arabia, under growing pressure to account for a crush that
killed more than 700 people at the haj pilgrimage, on Friday suggested
pilgrims failing to follow crowd control rules bore some blame for the
worst disaster at the event for 25 years. The kingdom's regional rival
Iran expressed outrage at the deaths of 131 of its nationals at the
world's largest annual gathering of people, and politicians in Tehran
suggested Riyadh was incapable of managing the event. 'Death to the Saudi
dynasty!' hundreds of demonstrators chanted at a protest in the Iranian capital
Tehran... Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, in New York to attend the U.N.
General Assembly, echoed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in blaming
Saudi Arabia for the incident. 'I ask the Saudi Arabian government to
take responsibility for this catastrophe and fulfill its legal and
Islamic duties in this regard,' Rouhani said in a statement published on
the state news agency IRNA. Iranian state television said the
demonstrators in Tehran were showing their anger at 'Saudi incapability
and incompetence to run the haj.'" http://t.uani.com/1QCSQdA
Opinion &
Analysis
WashPost Editorial:
"With the international community preparing to lift most sanctions
on Iran, its president, Hassan Rouhani, no doubt will present his nation
as ready to take its rightful, respected place in the world when he
addresses the U.N. General Assembly on Monday. The world, including the
Obama administration, should think twice about that. Any nation that
holds innocent journalists captive, in violation of its own laws and of international
norms, will be regarded with suspicion, and deservedly so. Washington
Post reporter Jason Rezaian was seized by Iranian security officials 14
months ago. Iran has never made clear why, but officially his detention
is based on what the State Department has called 'patently absurd'
allegations of espionage and aiding a hostile government. Iranian law
says no one may be detained for longer than a year without a conviction,
unless accused of murder. No conviction has been announced, but Mr.
Rezaian remains imprisoned. That is Exhibit One concerning Iran's
trustworthiness as a law-abiding state. Mr. Rezaian's trial was conducted
in secret, and he's been allowed little contact with his court-appointed
lawyer or with relatives. His trial apparently concluded a month ago.
Verdicts are supposed to be rendered within two weeks, but his lawyer has
not been informed of one. That is Exhibit Two. The outrage of Mr.
Rezaian's detention extends beyond the niceties of Iranian law. U.N.
officials have said that his treatment conflicts with international
norms. 'The arrest, detention and secret trial of Mr. Rezaian violate his
rights and intimidate all those working in the media in Iran,' David
Kaye, U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, said
last month. In an Aug. 31 report, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon expressed
concerns about the level of censorship and number of detained journalists
in Iran and drew particular attention to Mr. Rezaian's case. 'It appears
that his arrest and prosecution are linked to his profession as a
journalist and his legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of
expression,' the report states. Any foreign companies contemplating
investment in Iran will have to wonder: To what extent can they count on
Iranian courts to protect their assets or their employees? Mr. Rezaian, a
talented journalist with U.S. and Iranian citizenship, had dedicated his
life to improving understanding between the two nations. Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif called him 'a good reporter' and said, more than
seven months ago, 'I hope he will be cleared in a court of law. ... I
hope once the court process is completed, we will have a clear-cut case
or we will have his acquittal.' Instead, we have continuing lawless
limbo, with Mr. Rouhani suggesting vaguely that 'the American side must
take its own steps.' Eager to complete an agreement on Iranian nuclear
capability and win approval for it in Congress, the administration has
been reluctant to say much about Iran's egregious human rights violations
at home or support of terrorism abroad. We favor the nuclear deal, but
that can't be the only element in the U.S.-Iranian relationship.
President Obama and Congress both should make clear that further
improvement in relations, including the foreign investment that Mr.
Rouhani craves, is difficult to imagine as long as innocent Americans
languish in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison." http://t.uani.com/1Vf4Y5U
UANI Advisory Board
Member Michael Singh & Simond de Galbert in WSJ:
"Iran's refusal to come clean about its research and development
related to nuclear weapons-known as 'possible military dimensions,' or
PMD, in the parlance of the diplomatic talks-was long regarded as one of
the toughest obstacles to a deal. Rather than confront the issue,
negotiators made two key decisions that effectively sidestepped it.
First, negotiators from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security
Council and Germany, or the 'P5+1,' delinked implementation of a deal-and
sanctions relief-from full resolution of concerns about military-related
activity. Then, negotiators left it to the International Atomic Energy
Agency and Iran to determine how to address those concerns. The IAEA and
Iran concluded two side agreements: a 'road map' for resolving
international concerns about weapons-related activity and a document
governing IAEA access to Iran's facility at Parchin. The IAEA has
insisted that these agreements remain confidential, saying that this is
routine, even though it would make assessing Iranian cooperation more
difficult. But the previous comprehensive agreement on this issue, from
August 2007, was made public shortly after it was concluded. More
transparency could surely be offered, at least to the IAEA's board of
governors, without divulging details that jeopardize Iran's security.
It's not clear whether the absence of such transparency is a political or
technical decision. Iran may have agreed to acknowledge the existence of
past militarization efforts but requested discretion. More likely is that
Iran refused to change its long-standing policy of denying that it has
engaged in nuclear weapons research, either to save face or to shield the
personnel and facilities involved. Either way, the IAEA assessment of
Iran's weaponization work, due Dec. 15, is unlikely to prove satisfying.
That Iran now has little incentive to soften its obstinacy on the
weaponization issue in the future, even if it offers procedural
cooperation with the IAEA to satisfy the requirements of the agreement
announced in July, is not merely a matter of historical interest:
Inspectors' efforts to ensure that Iran does not resume nuclear weapons
research will be hampered by a lack of forthrightness regarding past work
and access to the personnel and facilities involved. With the nuclear
accord moving forward, policy makers must consider how to address known
weaknesses regarding past military-related work. Some potentially useful
steps: First, the IAEA should make clear what will be confirmed about
Iran's past activities and what won't. Establishing 'known unknowns' is
important to establishing a baseline for future assessments. Toward the
same end, the United States and European allies should convene their
nuclear weapons experts to determine as fully as possible a common and
precise understanding of Iran's past weaponization progress. Second, the
IAEA board of governors, which is to review inspectors' Dec. 15 report,
should request that the agency's director general, Yukiya Amano, make
public-or at least make available to board member states-his agreements with
Iran. Further, the board should establish a high bar for endorsement of
the IAEA findings, taking care to highlight unaddressed concerns. The
IAEA and P5+1 should not hesitate to delay implementation of the nuclear
agreement-expected to occur in early 2016-and to push Iran for greater
transparency if they believe Iranian cooperation to be insufficient...
Fourth, if the IAEA has not specifically secured access to Iranian
nuclear sites for inspectors, the U.S. and its allies should use the
provision of the international accord requiring that Iran admit
inspectors to suspect sites to ensure adequate access to facilities and
personnel related to past nuclear weapons research. Iranian assertions
that no interviews with nuclear scientists or inspections of military
sites will be permitted must be challenged lest they become de facto
restrictions on IAEA activities. In a strict sense, the IAEA's inquiry
into Iranian nuclear weapons research and development is about the past.
But it is also about the future. Understanding the progress Iran made
toward a nuclear bomb, and mapping the networks of facilities and
personnel involved in such efforts, can help head off any nuclear
breakout attempt in the coming years." http://t.uani.com/1G6SINV
Kenneth Pollack
& Ilan Goldenberg in The Daily Beast: "Our
greatest concern with the Iranian nuclear deal is an issue that is only
just starting to get the attention in the public debate that it deserves:
its potential impact on the Middle East itself. In truth no
one-including the Israelis and the Saudis-feared that the Iranians would
start lobbing nukes at them as soon as they got them. Instead,
everyone's (legitimate) fear was that an Iranian nuclear arsenal would
enable and encourage greater Iranian efforts to destabilize the region by
subversion or even outright aggression. The deal itself will take
that particular worry off the table for 10-15 years if not longer, but
does not mitigate the pre-existing problem of Iranian efforts to overturn
the regional status quo by force, terrorism, insurgency, and other
unsavory methods. In fact, that's what all of America's allies are most
afraid of. That, coupled with the fear that the United States will use
the nuclear deal to further disengage from the region. Understandably,
they fret over a post-nuclear-deal future in which the United States is
making even less of an effort to play its traditional role as regional
stabilizer, and its very absence further incites Iran to greater
aggressiveness. The Obama Administration insists that it does not plan to
disengage from the Middle East after the Iranian nuclear deal, but
America's Middle Eastern allies remain unconvinced. Across the board in
private, Gulf officials damn the Administration for its disdain for the Middle
East and particularly its weak response to Iran. Some of these criticisms
are overblown and blame the Obama Administration for regional
developments outside of its control or inflate the threat posed by Iran.
But the reality is that in the absence of American engagement,
leadership, and military involvement in the region, the GCC states (led
by the Saudis) get frightened, and their tendency when frightened is to
lash out. The GCC military campaign in Yemen is a perfect example of
this. It represents a dramatic departure from past practice: the
Gulf States had never intervened directly with their own armed forces
against another country, except a part of a massive American-led force,
as in the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91. It drives home the point that
in the absence of a strong American role in pushing back on Iran, the
GCC's default mode is to attack on their own-and that only makes the
situation worse. The Gulf states are not strong enough to take on
Iran alone, and if they act provocatively toward it, even if intended to
deter Iranian aggression, they could easily provoke just such aggression
and/or overstretch their own limited capabilities with potentially dire
consequences. If the United States is not there to reassure the
Gulf states and deter Iran, things could get even uglier. There may only
be one way that the United States is going to reassure the Gulf States
that it is not going to leave the field open to the Iranians. Not
coincidentally, it may be the only way to demonstrate to the Iranians
that the United States is neither abandoning the region nor too fearful
of jeopardizing the nuclear agreement to block Iran's continued
aggressive activities around the Middle East. And that is for the United
States to pick a place and take the Iranians on there. Here there are
three possibilities, but ultimately only one conclusion. Yemen is
the wrong place for the United States to confront Iran. Yemen is
simply not consequential enough to justify making any American investment
there; in fact, Washington should be doing everything it can to help the
Saudis and the GCC end their own intervention in Yemen, not reinforce
it. Iraq is also the wrong choice. The Iranians are too
strong in Iraq now and Iraq is too important to Iran. Both we and
the Iranians need the Iraqis to sort out their problems, and Iraq will
probably need both of our help to do so. Thus, Iraq is also the
wrong place at the wrong time. That leaves Syria. If the United States is
going to push back on Iran in the aftermath of the nuclear deal to
demonstrate to both Tehran and our regional allies that we are not
abandoning the field and allowing (or enabling) the Iranians to make
greater gains, Syria is the place to do it. Syria is a genuinely
contested battlefield with high stakes for both Iran and the GCC states
and one where increased American action could tip the scales in the midst
of a prolonged stalemate... In the end, a serious American effort to tip
the scales in Syria and bring the civil war to an end would send a
powerful signal both to our Arab allies and to Iran. It may also
set the table for a new regional order where, in the aftermath of a
negotiated agreement on Syria as well as the nuclear issue, there is a
precedent set for greater engagement and diplomacy between the United
States, Iran and the Arab States to solve the region's problems.
But it is yet another of the paradoxes of the Middle East that before
those more positive scenarios can come to pass in the aftermath of the
Iranian nuclear deal, finally executing the Obama Administration's
proclaimed strategy for Syria and increasing American involvement may be
the best and only way to regain control over the dangerous confrontation
escalating between Iran and America's Arab allies." http://t.uani.com/1MsRCAI
Michael Makovsky in
The Weekly Standard: "Such is the strategic reality
that has emerged from the Iran deal. It has put an exclamation point on a
collapse of American leadership that had been building during the entire
Obama administration (and the last part of the Bush administration, too).
It signaled a decisive reversal of decades of American dominance of the
Middle East. Following our feckless blunders in withdrawing from Iraq,
drawing but not enforcing a red line in Syria, and declaring quasi-war
but doing very little against the Islamic State, the Iran deal was the
straw that broke the camel's back of American credibility in the region.
It blessed the emergence, 15 years hence, of a nuclear-weapons-capable
and ballistic-missile-armed Iran, enriched and empowered a vehemently
anti-American and anti-Israeli, terrorist-supporting regime, and spurred
nuclear proliferation in the region. What is to be done? We can mitigate
some of the deal's costs in the near term, walk away from it as soon as
possible, and act to prevent rather than enable or try to contain a
nuclear-armed Iran. These must be fundamental elements of any successful
U.S. national security policy. How does one begin? First, don't obsess
about sanctions. Recognize that eagerness to do something can get in the
way of doing what is needed. Sanctions can be an important tool of
foreign policy, but they are a limited tool. Lawmakers concerned about
the threat of Iran's nuclear program naturally gravitated toward
sanctions as one of the few areas where the legislative branch can lead
and set foreign policy. But this also gave many members of Congress an
easy but ultimately ineffective out. Sanctions did not succeed in
pressuring the regime in Tehran to cease its nuclear program. Even as
they damaged Iran's economy, the regime continued installing new
centrifuges. Obama was right when he said, 'Sanctions alone are not going
to force Iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear
infrastructure.' Sanctions are only one supporting element of a new policy
against Iran. Second, stick to what works. The sanctions fixation
obscured a strategy that actually has an empirical record of reining in
illicit nuclear programs: a credible military threat. Tehran suspended
parts of its nuclear program in 2003-04, when the mullahs worried they'd
be next after the United States toppled Saddam Hussein. The Iraq war also
led Muammar Qaddafi to destroy his nuclear program. More recently, in
September 2012, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew a red line
at Iran acquiring a bomb's worth-about 155 kilograms-of 20 percent
enriched uranium. At the time, Iran was already dangerously close to this
threshold; but it never crossed it. Hearing and, more important,
believing Netanyahu's implicit threat, Iran chose to keep its stockpile
from exceeding Israel's red line. Third, the next president-especially if
he or she wisely walks away from the deal-must use this credible military
option not only to prevent Iran from going nuclear but also to confront
Iran more broadly in the region. We can never be safe, nor can we ever
regain international credibility, if Iran develops nuclear bombs or runs
free as a dominant regional power. Attaining the capability to prevent
these things will require freeing the U.S. military from the shackles of
sequestration and boosting its capacity in the Middle East and
beyond." http://t.uani.com/1jhQMNy
Peter Kohanloo in
WSJ: "At the heart of Mr. Obama's diplomacy with the
mullahs is the notion that freezing their nuclear ambitions, if only for
a limited time of 10 years, would lead to a transformation of the regime.
Give it access to international commerce, the thinking goes, and it will
gradually moderate its behavior. The trouble is that this vision depends
solely upon Iran. Yet nothing in the Islamic Republic's 36-year history
suggests a transformation will happen automatically. Achieving such a
transformation therefore requires more than just hope. It calls for a
plan. What would a serious strategy against the Iranian threat look like?
... The U.S. should hone in on the inequality in Iran between men and
women. Activists on the ground already challenge the second-class status
of Iranian women in creative and provocative ways. 'My Stealthy Freedom,'
for example, is a Facebook campaign that encourages Iranian women to
protest forced veiling by posting pictures and videos of themselves while
uncovered in public. The U.S. government should denounce the oppression
of Iranian women, and American civil-society organizations should amplify
the voices of Iranian women whenever possible. Sports federations, such
as the International Olympic Committee, should punish the regime's
discrimination against Iranian women, who are often barred from stadiums
as spectators. Spotlighting the Iranian regime's misogynistic policies
embarrasses the mullahs, who have shown themselves to be allergic to
scrutiny of their domestic record. Publicly shaming Iran's rulers also
undermines their perverse claim to be the Middle East's beacon of
progress. Another strategy: Give Iranians the opportunity to exercise
meaningful free choice and experience the responsibility and
self-confidence that come with democracy. One of the most cynical aspects
of the Iranian regime is its appropriation of democratic elements-ballot
boxes, newspapers, unions, etc. Instead of allowing them to thrive, the
regime turns them into a charade. Every time Iranians feel compelled to
participate in these sham institutions, they grow more cynical.
Washington can help break this cycle and prepare a transition to true
democracy. One idea might be to create an online parliament, in which
Iranians can hold political debates-rigorously moderated, fair and
secure. This would allow Iranians the opportunity to be heard by their
compatriots for the first time in decades. The International Republican
Institute and the National Democratic Institute could be bipartisan
partners in this project. Finally, the U.S. should promote religious
liberty in Iran. Iran's theocracy has made many Iranians distrustful of
religion, but many more still hunger for authentic faith. Dissident
clerics, such as the Ayatollah Boroujerdi, have risked jail and torture
to call for the separation of mosque and state. Washington ought to
publicly support such figures... President Obama has imagined that legitimizing
the Iranian regime and flooding its coffers with cash will change
Tehran's behavior. Through their continued repression at home, their
chilling rhetoric against the U.S. and Israel, and their support for
terrorism, the mullahs have shown that they have no intention to change.
Transformation will only come if Washington tips the balance against the
regime and toward the opposition. The nuclear clock is ticking." http://t.uani.com/1LaM9Bf
Ilan Goldenberg in
The National Interest: "In the aftermath of the
nuclear agreement with Iran, indications from both Washington and Tehran
are that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is strictly an arms
control deal. U.S. policy makers argue America should prioritize
implementation of the agreement, reassuring Israeli and Gulf partners,
and countering Iran's malign activities in the Middle East. But if the
United States focuses exclusively on mitigating the risks of the
agreement and does not test opportunities for collaboration with Iran, it
may close off a historic opportunity to reshape relations with the
Islamic Republic. When it comes to Iranian intentions and actions, there
is much to be skeptical about. A naïve policy that seeks to turn Iran
into an ally and ignores its provocative actions will not work. In many
arenas, American and Iranian interests are fundamentally at odds. Iran
supports and arms the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and
Shia militias in Iraq. Only last week, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated
that Israel will not exist in twenty-five years. There are also
significant objections from two long-standing allies-Israel and Saudi
Arabia. Both fear this agreement is the beginning of an American pivot
towards Iran that will come at a cost to their interests. While the
United States does not always see eye-to-eye with its partners, they have
been reliable bedrocks of American strategy in the Middle East for fifty
years. Undermining those relations by putting all of the chips on Iran is
a risky and unnecessary gamble. But even if comprehensive rapprochement
is not in the cards, a slow thaw characterized by increased engagement
and limited cooperation can create opportunities to advance U.S.
interests while not undermining relations with key partners. Such an
approach is compatible with a strategy that also pushes back on Iran's
nefarious activities, recommits to regional partners and emphasizes
vigorous implementation of the JCPOA. Indeed, for the past ten years, the
United States successfully pursued a dual track strategy of diplomatic
engagement and economic pressure to address the nuclear challenge. This
duality characterizes relations with Russia and China, with whom the
United States both cooperates on issues of common interest even as it
aggressively competes in some arenas... Reshaping the U.S.-Iranian
relationship will be a long and difficult process with no guarantees of
success. A policy that simultaneously counters bad Iranian behavior while
increasing engagement will not turn two old enemies into allies. But it
may over time turn them into 'just' competitors, which would be a
meaningful improvement." http://t.uani.com/1jfmawi
|
|
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