Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Eye on Iran: Officials: Iran Nuke Talks to Continue in New Phase






Join UANI  
 Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter View our videos on YouTube
   
Top Stories

AP: "Wrapping up six days of marathon nuclear talks with mixed results, Iran and six world powers prepared Tuesday to issue a general statement agreeing to continue talks in a new phase aimed at reaching a final agreement to control Iran's nuclear ambitions by the end of June, officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday. Officials had set a deadline of March 31 for a framework agreement, and later softened that wording to a framework understanding, between Iran and the so-called P5+1 nations - the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. And after intense negotiations, obstacles remained on uranium enrichment, where stockpiles of enriched uranium should be stored, limits on Iran's nuclear research and development and the timing and scope of sanctions relief among other issues. The joint statement is to be accompanied by additional documents that outline more detailed understandings, allowing the sides to claim enough progress has been made thus far to merit a new round, the officials said. Iran has not yet signed off on the documents, one official said, meaning any understanding remains unclear... The softening of the language from a framework 'agreement' to a framework 'understanding' appeared due in part to opposition to a two-stage agreement from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Earlier this year, he demanded only one deal that nails down specifics and does not permit the other side to 'make things difficult' by giving it wiggle room on interpretations." http://t.uani.com/1I0ykCI

Reuters: "Iran is not expected to normalize relations with the United States even if Tehran reaches agreement with world powers on its nuclear program, officials and analysts said... Loyalists of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, drawn from among Islamists and Revolutionary Guards who fear continued economic hardship might cause the collapse of the establishment, have agreed to back President Hassan Rouhani's pragmatic readiness to negotiate a nuclear deal, Iranian officials said. 'But it will not go beyond that and he (Khamenei) will not agree with normalizing ties with America,' said an official, who spoke in condition of anonymity. 'You cannot erase decades of hostility with a deal. We should wait and see, and Americans need to gain Iran's trust. Ties with America is still a taboo in Iran.' ... However, Khamenei has continued to give speeches larded with denunciations of Iran's 'enemies' and 'the Great Satan', words aimed at reassuring hardliners for whom anti-American sentiment has always been central to Iran's Islamic revolution... 'As long as Khamenei remains Supreme Leader the chances of normalizing U.S.-Iran relations are very low. Rapprochement with the U.S. arguably poses a greater existential threat to Khamenei than continued conflict,' said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington." http://t.uani.com/1OULW4r

WSJ: "With a key deadline just hours away, U.S. and European officials said nuclear negotiations were imperiled by deep uncertainty over whether Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would sign off on the necessary concessions for a deal... after more than 18 months of direct negotiations, Western officials said there are signs Mr. Khamenei hasn't empowered his negotiators to give ground on the few remaining sticking points. These include the pace at which United Nations sanctions on Iran would be removed, the scope of Tehran's future nuclear work, and the ability of international inspectors to access the country's nuclear and military sites. Mr. Khamenei, in speeches and posts on social media in recent days, has fixated on the demand that U.N. sanctions be removed at the beginning of any agreement. U.S. officials have said this isn't feasible and that the restrictions would be removed in phases and in response to Iran abiding by the commitments it makes." http://t.uani.com/1CHzHD2

   
Nuclear Program & Negotiations

Reuters: "Iran would not necessarily have to ship its stockpile of highly enriched uranium abroad under a nuclear pact with major powers, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on Monday. 'You don't have to ship it out of the country to get to a year breakout time,' she said in a conference call, referring to the goal of stretching the amount of time it would take Iran to acquire enough fissile material to make one atomic bomb. 'You can have some other dispositions for it that get us where we need to be in terms of our bottom line,' Harf said... Harf said that the two sides had never had an agreement on shipping enriched uranium abroad and said there were different ways to achieve the U.S. goal of extending Iran's 'breakout time' to one year. 'For months we have been talking with Iran about the different ways they can get rid of that stockpile. One is obviously dilution in country, as they have been doing. One is shipping it overseas,' Harf said. 'This is one we have to resolve, but we haven't yet.'" http://t.uani.com/1Iid1t9

NYT: "Negotiators from the United States, Iran and five other nations pushed into the night on Monday to try to reach a preliminary political agreement on limiting Iran's nuclear program. But with a Tuesday deadline, it seemed clear that even if an accord were reached some of the toughest issues would remain unresolved until late June... The main points that the negotiators have been grappling with include the pace of lifting United Nations sanctions, restriction on the research and development of new types of centrifuges, the length of the agreement and even whether it would be detailed in a public document. Yet another dispute was highlighted Sunday when Iran's deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araqchi, told Iranian and other international news organizations that Iran had no intention of disposing of its nuclear stockpile by shipping the fuel out of the country, as the United States has long preferred... 'The shipping out of Iran's uranium stockpile was to be the key administration win in this agreement,' Representative Ed Royce, the California Republican who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in an interview Monday. 'It was presumed they were going to win on that point because they were giving in on every other point. 'Now,' he added, 'it looks like that rationale is being tossed out the window.' Outside experts said the resolution of the issue was critical to the administration's ability to make a convincing political case that the United States and its allies would have plenty of warning time if Iran made a dash for a bomb." http://t.uani.com/1bMQydJ

Free Beacon: "One source familiar with the talks told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration had been promising members of Congress that Iran would consent to export its uranium. 'Administration officials told lawmakers they'd get the Iranians to make a concession, then the Iranians refused to make that concession, and now the State Department is pretending they never expected anything anyway,' said the source. 'The White House briefed lawmakers and told them the Iranians were willing to ship out their stockpile,' the source said. 'That was the whole justification for jacking up centrifuge numbers to 6,000. State Department spokespeople are basically gaslighting reporters by pretending otherwise.'" http://t.uani.com/1EYHIk5

AFP: "Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday he was planning to take part in marathon talks aimed at curtailing Iran's nuclear programme, saying chances of a deal were significant. 'Indeed I am planning to return and take part in the final part of the ministerial meeting of the six powers,' Lavrov told reporters in Moscow. Moscow had said earlier that Lavrov, who participated in the talks on Monday, would only return if there was a realistic chance of a deal. On Tuesday, Lavrov struck a sanguine note. 'The prospects of this round of talks are not bad, even good I would say,' said Lavrov, speaking alongside Vanuatu's foreign minister Sato Kilman. 'Chances are high,' he added. 'They are probably not absolute and there is never absolute certainty in anything.'" http://t.uani.com/1HhhVpU

Pew: "Ahead of a March 31 deadline for nuclear talks with Iran, more Americans approve (49%) than disapprove (40%) of the United States negotiating directly with Iran over its nuclear program. But the public remains skeptical of whether Iranian leaders are serious about addressing international concerns over their nuclear enrichment program. If a nuclear agreement is reached, most Americans (62%) want Congress to have final authority over the deal. Just 29% say President Obama should have final authority over any nuclear agreement with Iran... Among those who have heard at least a little about the nuclear talks (76% of the public), 63% say Iranian leaders are not serious 'about addressing international concerns about their country's nuclear enrichment program.'" http://t.uani.com/19wUz4h

Regional Destabilization

Reuters: "A nuclear deal with Iran may spur proxy wars in the Middle East as Sunni Muslims try to counter an increasingly wealthy and powerful Shi'ite Iran, the European Union's counter-terrorism coordinator said on Monday. Gilles de Kerchove told the European Parliament one important cause of terrorism was 'this war by proxy from the Sunni world which feels a bit on the defensive because of the rise of Iran'. Asked if a deal to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions being negotiated in Switzerland would have an impact, he said: 'Yes, of course, because Iran will have even more money. 'It is a sophisticated country, with a vision, more and more powerful in the Middle East, and therefore on the Sunni side there might be a temptation for some to support extremist groups to fight against Iran by proxy,' he said." http://t.uani.com/1OUMerU

Free Beacon: "NBC's Richard Engel reported Friday that U.S. officials were stunned they were not given any notice before Saudi Arabia launched attacks against Houthi rebels. According to Engel, military leaders were finding out about the developments on the Yemen border in real time. Engel said officials from both the military and members of Congress believe they were not given advanced warning because the Arab nations do not trust the Obama administration after they befriended Iran. 'Saudi Arabia and other countries simply don't trust the United States any more, don't trust this administration, think the administration is working to befriend Iran to try to make a deal in Switzerland, and therefore didn't feel the intelligence frankly would be secure. And I think that's a situation that is quite troubling for U.S. foreign policy,' Engel said... 'So there are many people who I have spoken to, many in the military, many policy analysts who say what we are seeing here is incoherent policy regarding not just Iran, but regarding the middle east in general,' Engel said." http://t.uani.com/1FdLfxB 

Yemen Crisis

Fars: "Commander of Iran's Basij (volunteer) Force Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi condemned the Saudi aggression against Yemen, and said that the Al Saud dynasty will have a fate similar to that of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. 'Imposing war on Yemen will, God willingly, have no result other than Saddam's fate for the aggressors and the US that is the direct sponsor of this crime will have to leave the region forever after losing its puppet, the Al Saud regime,' Brigadier General Naqdi said in a statement on the occasion of the anniversary of the Islamic Republic Day in Tehran on Tuesday." http://t.uani.com/1FdJW1D

Opinion & Analysis

Bret Stephens in WSJ: "Some readers may object that Iran has made its own significant concessions. Except it hasn't. They may also claim that the U.S. has no choice but to strike a deal. Except we entered these negotiations with all the strong cards. We just chose to give them up. Finally, critics may argue that I'm being unfair to the administration, since nobody knows the agreement's precise terms. But that's rich coming from an administration that refuses to negotiate openly, lest the extent of its diplomatic surrender be prematurely and fatally exposed. Nearly a century ago Woodrow Wilson insisted on 'open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in public view.' Barack Obama prefers to capitulate to tyrants in secret. Judging from the above, it's no wonder." http://t.uani.com/1GIEdTu

Elise Auerbach in Amnesty: "As if it weren't bad enough. Iranian women face persistent systemic discrimination in terms of family law. New legislation being considered by Iran's parliament is intended to roll back many of the gains women have made in the past decades and consign them to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. And on top of that, if they dare to protest about the inequities they suffer, they are sentenced to long prison terms, to be served in prisons where unsanitary conditions and medical neglect can quickly undermine their health. This is the fate of Bahareh Hedayat, an activist with The Campaign for Equality, a grassroots initiative, and a member of the Central Committee of the Office for the Consolidation of Unity, a national student body which has been active in calling for political reform and opposing human rights violations in recent years. She is currently serving a ten-year prison sentence in Evin Prison. She had been charged with a number of 'offenses' including 'interviews with foreign media,' 'insulting the leader,' 'insulting the president,' and 'disrupting public order through participating in illegal gatherings.' Bahareh Hedayat has already served half of her prison sentence and is therefore eligible to be paroled under Iranian law. But concerned human rights activists need to urge the Iranian government to release her now so that she can receive medical attention for her health conditions. Amnesty International and United4Iran have collaborated to create a petition calling for her immediate and unconditional release. The situation for women has only gotten worse since Bahareh Hedayat's arrest five years ago. As Amnesty International's new report 'You Shall Procreate: Attacks on women's sexual and reproductive rights in Iran' details, Bill 446 currently being amended by the Parliament as per the recommendation of the Guardian Council and Bill 315, soon to be considered by Parliament, will result in the state interfering in women's most intimate and personal decisions in the attempt to double Iran's population. The human rights of women and girls would be violated and their autonomy greatly restricted if the bills become law. Among other provisions, women who have not had children will be disfavored in hiring decisions by employers and voluntary sterilization will be outlawed." http://t.uani.com/1yw1O2J

Joseph Bahout & Benjamin Haddad in FP: "As a March 31 deadline looms in the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, the United States and France, two strong allies, have found themselves increasingly at odds, at times quite publicly. While the White House has been pushing hard for consensus on the framework for a deal ahead of the deadline, Paris has been pushing back. 'Repeating that an agreement has to be reached by the end of March is a bad tactic. Pressure on ourselves to conclude at any price,' Gérard Araud, France's ambassador in Washington, tweeted on March 20. On Tuesday, François Delattre, France's ambassador to the United Nations, said that Iran's progress was 'insufficient.' The word from Paris has been equally unsupportive of the U.S. push for a deal. 'France wants an agreement, but a robust one that really guarantees that Iran can have access to civilian nuclear power, but not the atomic bomb,' French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared on March 21. What gives? Is France's Socialist President François Hollande actually a neoconservative? Has Paris suddenly turned into a hawk among nations? Not quite. France's policy is dictated by a set of principles with regard to nonproliferation that have guided administrations on both sides of the political spectrum in the talks with Tehran since 2002. And the tension with Washington is just one expression of a larger disagreement between the two countries over U.S. strategy in the Middle East. Differences between Washington and Paris have been quietly brewing for months. The French feel that they are being kept out of the loop in critical discussions. The multilateral framework of Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany) has turned into a bilateral discussion between Iran and the United States. This exclusion has been coupled with increasing pressure from Washington. French diplomats complain (albeit only privately) that their American counterparts are trying to force them to make concessions on issues like the number of centrifuges allowed or sanctions in order to reach an agreement by March 31, a deadline that the French, like many of the White House's critics back home, see as artificial and counterproductive. The French do not share the sense of hurry that Washington seems to feel. As France's ambassador to the United States tweeted on March 3: 'We want a deal. They need a deal. The tactics and the result of the negotiation should reflect this asymmetry.' But the differences between the French and American positions go beyond process and into matters of substance. The lifting of sanctions, the scope of inspections, research and development capacities, the number of centrifuges Iran will be allowed to maintain, and how long the agreement will last are all areas in which Paris and Washington differ. In Lausanne last week, France rejected Iran's demand to immediately lift United Nations Security Council sanctions linked to proliferation after an agreement, arguing that this can only come progressively, with verifications. A central concern is 'breakout time' (the minimum time needed to make weapons-grade uranium). According to current reports, a deal would ensure that Iranian breakout time would be moved back to one year. French negotiators want to ensure that Iran's agreed-upon breakout time will last the entire duration of the deal - and after. They also want a deal that lasts as long as possible. 'Ten years is short when you talk about nuclear issues,' one diplomat said. Another diplomat summed it up: 'We spent more than 10 years talking, slowly setting an architecture of sanctions, of pressure, defining principles of negotiations. Once we dismantle this, it won't come back up. So we better get the best possible deal.' ... Behind the Iran nuclear talks hovers the question of the future and shape of American power and leadership. For a decade, European countries have worked on trying to rein in Iran's nuclear program. France, like the other countries, has taken an economic hit in this effort, thanks to the sanctions regime. Now the view from Paris is of a Washington that seems to lack empathy and trust for its longtime friends and partners - more interested in making nice with Iran than looking out for its old allies." http://t.uani.com/1FdPSYm

James Suchliki in FP: "On Dec. 17, 2014, President Barack Obama announced a dramatic change in the United States' policy toward Cuba, heralding the end of a Cold War-era conflict that had begun to look increasingly anachronistic. The benefits of the two longtime foes' new and improved relationship remain to be seen - but the contradictions involved are already obvious. Over half a century of pursuing an aggressive anti-American foreign policy, Cuba has made plenty of friends whom the United States considers enemies, and Havana is unlikely to easily let go of its longtime allies. These include Russia, Venezuela, and a variety of Arab dictators, Islamic fundamentalist movements, and anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. The list of Cuba's unsavory friends also includes Iran - a relationship of particular salience on the world stage today. Communist Cuba's alliance with the Iran of the Ayatollahs dates to 1979, when Fidel Castro became one of the first heads of state to recognize the Islamic Republic's radical clerics. Addressing then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, Castro insisted that there was 'no contradiction between revolution and religion,' an ecumenical principle that has guided Cuba's relations with Iran and other Islamic regimes. Over the next two decades, Castro fostered a unique relationship between secular communist Cuba and theocratic Iran, united by a common hatred of the United States and the liberal, democratic West - and by substantial material interests. (In the photo, Iran's Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi and Cuba's Vice Foreign Minister Marcos Rodriguez attend a wreath-laying ceremony on Revolution Square in Havana on Sept. 7, 2011.) ... Iran has also benefited from its friendship with Havana in more aggressive ways. Geographically, Cuba's strategic location enabled the Islamic Republic, on at least one occasion, to clandestinely engage in electronic attacks against U.S. telecommunications that posed a threat to the Islamic regime's censorship apparatus. In the summer of 2003, Tehran blocked signals from a U.S. satellite that was broadcasting uncensored Farsi-language news into the country at a time of rising unrest. Based on the satellite's location over the Atlantic, it would have been impossible for Iranian-based transmissions to affect its signals. Ultimately, the jamming was traced to a compound in the outskirts of Havana that had been equipped with the advanced telecommunications technology capable of disrupting the Los Angeles-based broadcaster's programming across the Atlantic. It is well known that Cuba has continuously upgraded its ability to block U.S. broadcasts to the island, and hence, conceivably, to jam international communications. Although the Cuban government would later claim that Iranian diplomatic staff had operated out of the compound without its consent, given that Cuba '[is] a fully police state,' as Iran expert Safa Haeri has noted, 'it is difficult to believe the Iranians had introduced the sophisticated jamming equipment into Cuba without the knowledge of the Cuban authorities,' much less utilized it against U.S. targets without the knowledge of the Castro regime. In return for its services, Iran has compensated the Cuban government directly. During the presidency of Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005), Tehran offered Havana an initial 20 million euro annual credit line. Following the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, Iran expanded this credit line to 200 million euros for bilateral trade and investment projects. At the same time, Havana was spearheading a campaign within the Non-Aligned Movement to legitimize Iran's 'peaceful' nuclear program as an 'inalienable right' of all developing nations. In June 2008 Ahmadinejad approved a record 500 million euro credit for the Castro regime. From Iran's perspective, Cuba deserves to be rewarded for its 'similarity in outlooks on international issues.'" http://t.uani.com/1xvw3vB
        

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment