Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Iran Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 09, 2015 21 Comments
Within hours of the White House celebrating a supposed Iran nuclear framework "deal," it became apparent that the various sides -- the U.S., the Iranians and the Europeans -- had very different understandings of the deal. Those competing narratives now have moved to the stage of open declarations by senior Iranian officials that the White House is lying and that key elements in a White House Fact Sheet never were agreed upon and are unacceptable. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has taken to Twitter to call the Obama administration a bunch of untrustworthy liars: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/586113075809558528

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on April 08, 2015 57 Comments
The State Department stepped in it. Again. Now infamous for her dippy soundbites, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf might have topped her "ISIS just needs jobs" gaffe today. Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, both former Secretaries of State, wrote an op-ed that was published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. Brutally critical of the administration's much touted Iran deal, the op-ed focused on the White House's dismissive attitude towards the danger Iran poses. Kissinger and Shultz were less than impressed by the administration's insistence on the necessity of a deal with a country whose priorities aren't remotely in the same galaxy as those of the United States, noting:
Cooperation is not an exercise in good feeling; it presupposes congruent definitions of stability. There exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding. Even while combating common enemies, such as ISIS, Iran has declined to embrace common objectives. Iran’s representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means.
In sum, the op-ed eloquently observes the Iran deal is a complete and total cluster. At a press conference held earlier today, Marie Harf was in no mood to discuss the WSJ lashing. Flustered, Harf attempted to avoid questions on the WSJ op-ed, but Associated Press reporter Matt Lee persisted. "I read it and it's far from nuanced. It's pretty damning," Lee says. "You just reject it outright? They say this is a recipe for disaster basically, but you say, no, clearly, you wouldn't be pursuing something you thought was a recipe for disaster. Is that correct?" Lee reads a few lines of the piece, and lobs them back to Harf.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 07, 2015 24 Comments
There is no Iran nuke "deal," but whatever there is to the framework, even Obama now admits it paves Iran's path to the bomb, albeit on a delayed fuse, as AP reports, Obama says Iran could cut nuke time to near zero in 13 years:
Defending an emerging nuclear deal, President Barack Obama said Iran would be kept a year away from obtaining a nuclear weapon for more than a decade, but conceded Tuesday that the buffer period could shrink to almost nothing after 13 or more years. Obama, whose top priority at the moment is to sell the framework deal to critics, was pushing back on the charge that the deal fails to eliminate the risk because it allows Iran to keep enriching uranium. He told NPR News that Iran will be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms — not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material. "What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero," Obama said.
It's not at all clear that 13 years is the correct number, as opposed to 10. But regardless, the point is that at the end of this process Iran is ready to produce a bomb. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Netanyahu: Nuke Deal 'Paves Iran's Path to the Bomb':

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 05, 2015 46 Comments
I have fallen into the trap almost everyone has, in referring to an Iran "nuke deal" and "Framework deal." Based on what the White House has revealed, the "deal" is a very bad deal, as we have explored here repeatedly: It purports to give Iran its dual goals of maintaining and improving its nuclear infrastructure while removing sanctions and ensuring the economic viability of the oppressive Mullah regime. But it's even worse. Based upon statements made after the initial announcements, it's clear that there is no deal, just enough vague verbiage to allow each side to portray the "deal" however it wants. There is no meeting of minds, not binding contract, nothing. This was revealed initially in tweets by the Iranian Foreign Minister disputed White House "spin" on the "deal," insisting that sanctions would be lifted immediately, and crowing that Iran's enrichment would continue. https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/status/583994063512276992 https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/583723860522115072 Since then, the divergence has grown, The Times of Israel reports:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 04, 2015 23 Comments
The Iran nuke Framework deal is bad for anyone other than Iran. Iran achieved its two key negotiating objectives: Keep its nuclear infrastructure in place and get sanctions relief. https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/status/583994063512276992 As The Washington Post editorial board points out, these parameters are contrary to the bottom line Obama spelled out at the start of the negotiations: THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state. That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years. How did Iran do it? By setting its own negotiating red line and refusing to budge. I've seen that negotiating tactic hundreds of time -- it's effective only when the opposing party is not willing to walk away from the negotiation. That's us. Obama so desperately wanted a deal that he was not willing to walk away. The Iranians didn't need to walk away, they just needed to dig in behind their red line and wait. So Obama capitulated on the key insistance of Iran keeping it's nuclear program intact, and then negotiated over the rest. Obama admitted as much in his speech after the Framework was announced:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 03, 2015 38 Comments
Well that "Framework" negotiation was fun. For the Iranians, who got a great deal at least as far as a Framework goes. As this WaPo editorial points out, the Obama administration gave up on key parameters:
THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state. That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.
In his speech after the announcement, Obama took care not only to repeat the false rhetorical device of the only choice being between this deal and war, he blamed that choice on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. David Horvitz at The Times of Israel writes, Defeatist Obama’s deal with the devil:

Posted by Amy Miller on April 02, 2015 2 Comments
While diplomats postured and preened over their hard-fought "nuclear framework" intended to usher in the era of a nuclear-but-not-nuclear Iran, Yemen continued to burn. Today, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels made major progress in their attempt to seize control of Aden, Yemen's key strategic port city and site of ousted President Hadi's last-stand. (He fled to Saudi Arabia last week.) The Houthi don't yet exercise full control over Aden, but have managed to break through barriers armed by soldiers loyal to Hadi, briefly occupy the Presidential palace, and raise the Yemeni flag before withdrawing for fear of airstrikes. This isn't an insignificant accomplishment; if the Houthi eventually oust Hadi loyalists from Aden, they will have seized control over one of the most strategically important ports in the Middle East, and upped the ante on Saudi coalition forces currently trying to regain ground.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 02, 2015 31 Comments
A vague agreement to agree was just announced. The precise details are somewhat vague, as it's just a statement of point, but one thing is clear: Iran is thrilled.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 31, 2015 20 Comments
The arbitrary deadline to come to an agreement with Iran is today. But according to the Associated Press, that deadline might be extended to tomorrow, making this the third deadline extension.
They had set a deadline of Tuesday 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. 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 aim has been a joint statement is to be accompanied by additional documents that outline more detailed understandings, allowing the sides to claim enough progress has been made to merit a new round, 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.
Any deal reached would only amount to a soft framework, and likely not be particularized in writing as we reported Friday.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 30, 2015 4 Comments
Last time we checked in, the White House was wallowing in a state of denial over the devolving situation in Yemen. The UN held a meeting to discuss the fall of the Western-backed Hadi government, and while the diplomats were talking, Iran executed a blatant arms dump on behalf of the Houthi rebels, who have been contributing to chaos in Yemen since late last year. America postured while the Saudis went to war, launching air strikes against Iranian-made missile launchers and destroying Houthi-controlled military barracks and air bases. Now, as coalition air strikes rage on, the Saudis have constructed a blockade as a way of preventing Iran---or anyone else---from rearming the Houthi. Via the AP:
As night fell, intense explosions could be heard throughout the rebel-held capital Sanaa, where warplanes had carried out strikes since the early morning. Military officials from both sides of the conflict said that airstrikes were targeting areas east and south of the third largest city of Taiz, as well as its airport, while naval artillery and airstrikes hit coastal areas east of Aden. "It's like an earthquake," Sanaa resident Ammar Ahmed said by telephone. "Never in my life have I heard such explosions or heard such raids."

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on March 29, 2015 24 Comments
A vague, unwritten Iran deal may soon be hammered out as talks continue this weekend in Switzerland.  Reuters reports
Iran and six major powers were exploring possible compromises to break an impasse in nuclear negotiations on Sunday, but officials cautioned they were unable to move on several sticking points. The news came as Israel said the details of a possible agreement emerging from talks in Lausanne, Switzerland were worse than it feared. In a significant development in talks aimed at securing a preliminary nuclear deal, several officials told Reuters Tehran had indicated a willingness to accept fewer than 6,000 nuclear centrifuges and to send most of its enriched uranium stockpiles for storage in Russia. Western powers, on the other hand, were considering the idea of allowing Iran to conduct limited, closely-monitored enrichment-related work for medical purposes at an underground facility called Fordow, the officials added on condition of anonymity. Iran had originally insisted on keeping in operation the nearly 10,000 centrifuges it currently uses, but said in November that Washington indicated it could accept around 6,000. Iranian officials say they had been pushing for 6,500-7,000. The officials said all parts of an emerging nuclear deal were interrelated. "Everything could still fall apart," a Western official told Reuters, adding that the talks could drag on to Tuesday, the self-imposed deadline for a framework agreement.
According to The Telegraph, a pro-Rouhani Iranian journalist covering the P5 + 1 talks has sought asylum in Switzerland following frustration that he "could only write what he is told":

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 28, 2015 20 Comments
As if things in the Middle East couldn't get any worse, we're now at a point where our allies don't trust us. It's becoming quite clear that the only person who thinks Obama's pursuit of a deal with Iran is a good idea, is Obama. Daniel Bassali of the Washington Free Beacon:
Richard Engel: Military Officials Say Allies No Longer Trust Us, Fear Intel Might Leak to Iran 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.
Watch the segment: Ed Morrissey of Hot Air commented:
Engel’s report strongly suggests that it’s not just incompetence that has the Saudis and other US allies rattled, but a suspicion that they’re being purposefully sold out by Obama to get a deal with Iran that will unleash their ambitions to dominate the region.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 27, 2015 30 Comments
47 Traitors. White House snubs. A Presidential temper tantrum. Public fights with Netanyahu. Damaging international relationships with Israel. Leaked intel information. And what do we get for all the hassle? you get nothing A vague deal that won't even appear in writing. At least according to British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. Edward-Isaac Dovere reports at Politico:
No specifics, nothing written, perhaps not even anything that Iran and the international negotiating partners say as one—that’s the most to expect out of the nuclear talks now running up against the deadline in Switzerland, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said Friday. But even concluding this round of talks with that level of ambiguity, Hammond said, would count as a significant success. And he thinks they’ll get it.
It's safe to say that Secretary Hammond's definition of success is a bit different from the rest of the world.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 26, 2015 13 Comments
I could imagine such a conversation some decades in the future, if and when I have grandchildren and they are old enough to comprehend the historical mistakes of prior generations. The deal being discussed does not eliminate Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons, it enshrines the process by international agreement so long as Iran does not take the last step. Recognizing Iran as a Nuclear Threshold State: Implications for Israel and the Middle East:
With shrewd strategic perspective, the Iranian leadership has weighed the long term implications of an agreement with the major powers that constitutes international recognition of Iran’s “right” to be a “nuclear threshold state,” and gives it the ability to break out to a nuclear bomb when it so chooses. Consequently, it seeks an agreement (even if its validity is limited to 10-15 years) that in addition to leaving it with access to its nuclear technology also rewards it with both removal of the sanctions and international recognition of its special status in the Middle East. The status of a threshold state will leave Iran with the possibility of arming itself with nuclear weapons within a short time span, when it decides that conditions enable (or in its view, require) it to break out to military nuclear capability.
Who will act against it at that time when Iran decides the time is right for the breakout?

Posted by David Gerstman on March 23, 2015 9 Comments
The nuclear negotiations between the West and Iran may have reached an impasse over the timing of Iran getting relief from sanctions. This is how The Guardian broke down the differences between the United States and the French on Friday:
Diplomats say the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, telephoned the French delegation in Lausanne to ensure it did not make further concessions, and to insist that the bulk of UN sanctions could only be lifted if Iran gave a full explanation of evidence suggesting it may have done development work on nuclear warhead design in the past.  ... The US offer on sanctions is to lift UN sanctions in layers in return each “irreversible” step Iran makes to scale down and limit its nuclear programme. There would be mechanisms in place by which sanctions would “spring back” if Iran violated the agreement, without the need for consensus in the UN security council. It is broadly supported by the UK and Germany, while Russia and China, the other members of the six-nation group, would offer more generous terms. Tehran is reluctant to accept sanctions relief based on milestones, but diplomats say the French position would be a complete deal-breaker. They say the Iranians would be very unlikely to admit past weapons work, which if revealed would demonstrate that the country’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, had misled the world. Better, US diplomats argue, to focus on limiting the current Iranian programme and worry about allegations about the past a few years down the road.
Focus on the current issues and leave the allegations for the future? Are they crazy? Let's take a couple of paragraphs from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696, which was passed in July 2006 and was the first of six resolutions passed against Iran for its violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 22, 2015 9 Comments
As the arbitrary deadline to strike a deal with Iran draws close, Secretary Kerry says "genuine progress" has been made. France is not so sure the negotiations are going well, and neither is Israel. Both nations share concerns that Iran is receiving far too many concessions, saying any rush to relax sanctions is not a deal worth making. While talks proceed, and Kerry attempts to assures America with platitudes, Senator Cotton reminds us who we're negotiating with: Regardless of what Secretary Kerry tells the Associated Press, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader is not exactly a fan of Obama, America, or any deal that doesn't remove sanctions. And if you need more proof, look no further than than the Ayatollah's Twitter feed.
Accessibility by WAH