Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Iran Tag

Posted by David Gerstman on December 05, 2013 16 Comments
The Washington Post's fact checker, Glenn Kessler asks, "Did the United Nations demand Iran suspend uranium enrichment as part of a final deal?" At issue are statements made by Senators Robert Menendez and Bob Corker about Iran's right to enrich on the Sunday morning talks shows. Kessler, for example, took exception to Corker's response here:
CBS NEWS’S JOHN DICKERSON: Senator Corker, is it a red line for you? You talked about the standards of any ultimate deal. Is enrichment of any kind by Iran, is that something everybody should stay focused on? That any deal that includes that is a non-starter for you, because, of course, the Iranians say that they expect to be able to keep enriching? SEN. BOB CORKER (R-Tenn.): Yes, so to me that’s a baseline that the U.N. Security Council has agreed to, I think, six times, certainly this administration negotiated that in 2010. So they negotiated that in 2010. So as long as they can enrich, it seems to me that we are violating the very standards that we set in place in the first place. – exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Dec. 1, 2013
Kessler didn't hand out any Pinnochios to the senators but still found fault with their responses:
With their comments, Menendez and Corker might have left viewers with the impression that the U.N. resolutions already require a suspension of enrichment in any final agreement. That’s not the case — though it can certainly be an ongoing demand. The administration, for its part, appears to have set that goal aside in an effort to keep the diplomacy moving. The lawmakers are certainly within their rights to call attention to this decision, but they should be more precise in their language about what the U.N. resolutions actually require. Given that they were speaking on live television and this is a complex issue, their comments, at this point, do not yet rise to the level of a Pinocchio.
Perhaps the senators were a bit sloppy, but I think the question asked of them was misleading. The question shouldn't have been whether Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium as part of any final agreement, but whether Iran would prove that its nuclear program was strictly civilian. In introducing his analysis, Kessler wrote:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 03, 2013 2 Comments
In an interview airing now on Lebanese OTV television, Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah discusses the Iranian nuclear deal (summary translation via NOW Lebanon):
The Iran nuclear deal has significant repercussions. The region’s peoples are the biggest winners from this deal because regional and international forces have been pushing for war with Iran which would have had dangerous repercussions in the region. The deal pushed off the [potential Israeli and US] war [against Iran]. Israel cannot possibly bomb nuclear facilities without the US’ green light. Monopoly of power is no longer present. All American wars have failed. John Kerry made it clear that the US does not want more wars. The US and Europe have failed in the region. It is unlikely that normalization will take place. Iranians wanted to reassure the Gulf countries, especially Saudi Arabia. [interview in progress, check link for more]
More translation at Naharnet:

Posted by David Gerstman on December 02, 2013 6 Comments
In an article about Wendy Sherman, the administration's chief nuclear negotiator, Politics and a Ruptured Tendon Don’t Faze Lead Iran Negotiator, the NY Times reports sympathetically, even while indicting her.
Along the way, Ms. Sherman was the State Department’s chief strategist in dealing with the North Korean nuclear program. It was a searing experience, in both its temporary successes and long-term failure, that prepared her for the complexity of the Iranian negotiations, and has made her a target for those on Capitol Hill who argue that history is about to repeat itself.
What were the temporary successes? It was coming to agreements with the rogue regime. The long term failure stemmed from trusting those successes to deter North Korea. So if and when Iran develops a nuclear weapon, will we read about the temporary success of Geneva? For a history of Wendy Sherman that doesn't pull punches see Axis of Fantasy vs. Axis of Reality by Bret Stephens:

Posted by David Gerstman on December 01, 2013 3 Comments
A few months ago a picture of John and Teresa Heinz Kerry having dinner with Bashar and Asma Assad in 2009 resurfaced. The timing was awkward because it came just after the Secretary of State condemned Assad as a "thug," and compared him to Adolph Hitler for his use of chemical weapons. The problem with Kerry's meeting with Assad isn't just that it happened. It was the beginning of a relationship - with the approval of the Obama administration - in which the future secretary of state attempted to cultivate the dictator, apparently with the intent of weaning him away from Iran. Even after Assad's brutality towards protesters became undeniable, the Wall Street Journal reported that the administration wasn't ready to give up on him:
The killing of at least 70 people around the central town of Homs in the past five days, according to activists, brought to an estimated 1,100 the total toll in Mr. Assad's months-long crackdown and sparked tougher condemnation from the Obama administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged other Arab states, Russia and China to join in protesting the violence. ... Mrs. Clinton's ambiguity highlights the frustrating U.S. courtship of Bashar al-Assad. For more than two years, Mr. Obama's foreign-policy team has tried to woo Mr. Assad away from America's regional nemesis, Iran, and persuade him to resume peace talks with America's regional friend, Israel. For more than two years, Mr. Assad has frustrated the U.S. with the promise of reform and the practice of repression.
One detail in particular about the Obama administration's first term outreach to Syria sticks out, "Mr. Kerry, meanwhile, became Mr. Assad's champion in the U.S., urging lawmakers and policymakers to embrace the Syrian leader as a partner in stabilizing the Mideast." When it came to Syria John Kerry was out in front.

Posted by Mandy Nagy on November 29, 2013 7 Comments
Since the announcement of the Iran nuclear deal and the administration's release of a fact sheet on the matter, Iran has disputed the White House's interpretation of the agreement.  While Iran has insisted that the agreement recognizes its right to enrich uranium, Secretary of State John Kerry has said, "We do not recognize a right to enrich." The Washington Post published this piece Thursday by its editorial board that points out notable omissions in the fact sheet distributed by the Obama administration.
THE FACT sheet distributed by the Obama administration about the nuclear agreement with Iran is notable for its omissions. The 2,000-word document, like President Obama’s televised statement Saturday night about the deal, stresses Iran’s pledge to cap its enrichment of uranium, delay the completion of a plutonium-producing reactor and accept additional inspections — measures that will guard against an attempt to produce a bomb while negotiations continue.

Posted by David Gerstman on November 28, 2013 9 Comments
The Israeli delegation has just returned from the Philippines after nearly two weeks of providing emergency care to the island nation's survivors of Typhoon Haiyan. According to the Jerusalem Post the first baby delivered by the Israeli medical teams was named "Israel." In fact Israel - the IDF particularly - has been one of the world's great first responders in recent years, helping countries across the globe deal with the results of man made and natural disasters. The IDF has a map on its blog, with links to many of its notable accomplishments. View #IDFWithoutBorders in a larger map Japan, 2011, Earthquake/Tsunami According to the IDF:
The majority of the medical equipment taken to Japan by the IDF, including x-ray machinery and lab equipment, will remain in Japan in order to benefit the physicians and local authorities providing care to the community of Minamisanriku and its vicinity. ...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 27, 2013 18 Comments
Yesterday we reported that Iranian officials were furious that the Obama administration's "fact sheet" spun the nuclear deal in ways not agreed-upon.  The Iranians are crowing that their right to enrich uranium was confirmed while the Obama administration is saying the opposite. Now comes word that the "deal" is not actually final, that there are details to be worked out, and that there is a window before the agreement comes into effect. https://twitter.com/DanRiehl/status/405820620132200448 US now indicates Iran interim deal wasn’t quite finalized:
Iran is currently enjoying a “window” of time before the six-month deal signed in Geneva early Sunday goes into effect, during which it is not bound to take any credible steps toward disabling its ability to produce a nuclear weapon, the State Department acknowledged Tuesday. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that the six-month interim period, during which Iran would take steps to rein in its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, has not yet begun. Furthermore, there are still a number of details to be worked out, she said, without specifying what points had yet to be finalized.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 26, 2013 42 Comments

Seriously. https://twitter.com/DanRiehl/status/405455788228882433 From Fars News Agency, Iran Strongly Rejects Text of Geneva Agreement Released by White House: TEHRAN (FNA)- The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Tuesday called invalid a press release by the White House alleged to be the text of the nuclear agreement struck by Iran and the...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 25, 2013 38 Comments
I don't think it's overstatement to say that Obama successfully has isolated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by bringing the major world powers plus Germany into an Iran nuclear agreement publicly opposed by Netanyahu (and quietly by many Arab countries). The perennial thorn in Obama's Mideast side stands almost alone in publicly opposing the deal.  The agreement helps keep the Mullahs in power through removal of sanctions while normalizing Iranian uranium enrichment.  More than that, the statements accompanying the deal announcement treat Iran as the regional power to resolve a host of issues, including Syria. In exchange, Iran agrees to slight compromises that push back the "breakout" period to produce a nuclear weapon by a few weeks or months at most. Jeffrey Goldberg assesses Israel's isolation, In Iran, Obama Achieves 50 Percent of His Goals:
U.S. President Barack Obama has had two overarching goals in the Iran crisis. The first was to stop the Iranian regime from gaining possession of a nuclear weapon. The second was to prevent Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. This weekend, the president achieved one of these goals. He boxed-in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so comprehensively that it's unimaginable Israel will strike Iran in the foreseeable future. Netanyahu had his best chance to attack in 2010 and 2011, and he missed it. He came close but was swayed by Obama’s demand that he keep his planes parked. It would be a foolhardy act -- one that could turn Israel into a true pariah state, and bring about the collapse of sanctions and possible war in the Middle East -- if Israel were to attack Iran now, in the middle of negotiations.
I think it's much broader than forestalling an Israeli attack.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 24, 2013 17 Comments
The nuclear agreement with Iran is being touted by the Obama administration as a significant step in keeping Iran from moving towards nuclear weapons. In reality, the agreement is confirmation of Iran's uranium enrichment program at a relatively high level, although some of the highest level enrichment is supposed to be suspended. The fact is that in return for a weakening of sanctions that were putting great pressure on Iran, the centrifuges keep spinning, the facilities are maintained, and at best the length of time for an Iranian nuclear "breakout" has been lengthened for a short period. Eli Lake at The Daily Beast notes the significance:
Under the interim agreement Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium at low levels. Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif said the deal recognized his country's nuclear program. This is a major victory for Iran whose leaders have insisted for nearly a decade that it has the right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Officially, the Obama administration has not recognized that any country has this right under the treaty. It has argued that Iran has to adhere to the terms of prior U.N. Security Council resolutions that prohibit Iran from enrichment.
It is smoke and mirrors, allowing the Obama administration to declare diplomatic victory, change the subject, and create the straw man argument that anyone opposed to the agreement wants war. https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/404624480837722112 https://twitter.com/dansenor/status/404626184865996800

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 23, 2013 46 Comments
The details are just coming out, but it appears that Iran gets to keep its uranium enrichment program, albeit on a somewhat reduced level pending 6 months of monitoring. The U.S. agreed not to unilaterally impose new sanctions during this time period, something previously under consideration in Congress with strong bipartisan support. There also will be an easing of some sanctions. https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/404475962093367296 https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/404476002375831552 https://twitter.com/Rania_ElGamal/status/404474360314220545 Obama press conference Iran Geneva Agreement

Posted by David Gerstman on November 22, 2013 3 Comments
On Wednesday, The Israel Project hosted a conference call with Dr. Emily Landau of Israel's Institute for National Security Studies. Dr. Landau is a non-proliferation expert and spoke about the problems with the agreement apparently being negotiated between the P5+1 (United States, China, France, Great Britain, Russia and Germany) and Iran. Landau focused on four elements of the agreement, as reported that are problematic. She evaluated these terms by the stated standard of an interim by President Obama that "goal of this short term deal is to be absolutely certain that while we’re talking to the Iranians, they’re not busy advancing their program."
  1. According to reports, P5+1 are willing to allow Iran to continue enriching uranium to 3.5%. At this point Dr. Landau said that there is "no plausible civilian explanation" for Iran to need more low enriched uranium, given "its vast stockpile of 3.5% enriched uranium." Given the number of centrifuges Iran has, even at this level, allowing enrichment allows Iran to advance its nuclear program.
  2. A second point that Dr. Landau focused on was Iran's recently installed next generation centrifuges. These centrifuges can enrich uranium at four to five times the speed of Iran's currently operating centrifuges. The agreement will apparently will allow Iran to test these centrifuges. Since this is an interim deal, why allow Iran to get these centrifuges ready to operate? If the P5+1 isn't able to close a permanent deal with Iran in 6 months, then these centrifuges will be ready to enrich then. Again this marks an advancement in Iran's nuclear program.
  3. The third element of the dealt that concerns Landau is that it won't stop the construction at the Arak heavy water reactor. This is the point that French foreign minister objected to. So hopefully this will be addressed.
  4. The final element that is problematic is that apparently an inspections regime has been spelled out for various sites in Iran, but not for Parchin. Parchin is where the IAEA detected a containment chamber that could be used for testing nuclear trigger devices. Although Iran has been detected cleaning the site, it is hoped that inspectors could find some residual evidence of what was going on there.
The third and fourth points are especially important as both of them indicate that Iran's nuclear program is military not civilian. (One does build a reactor of the type at Arak unless one wishes to produce weapons grade plutonium; a trigger is a necessary component of a nuclear bomb.)

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 19, 2013 7 Comments

There was a double suicide bombing targeting the Iranian Embassy in Beirut earlier today. There are at least 25 dead, including one diplomat. An al-Qaeda linked group is claiming credit, but the Iranians are blaming Israel. The bobming is assumed to be in retaliation for Iran's involvement in...

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 18, 2013 20 Comments
Almost exactly one year ago reports surfaced that Valerie Jarrett was engaged in "secret" negotiations with Iran as Obama's personal emissary. The reports originated with Iranian bloggers, and was reported also by The New York Times. The Obama administration categorically denied the reports. Now Israeli television is reporting similar involvement, via the Times of Israel, ‘Geneva talks a facade, US-Iran worked secretly on deal for past year’:
The Geneva negotiations between the so-called P5+1 powers and Iran are a mere “facade,” because the terms of a deal on Iran’s nuclear program have been negotiated in talks between a top adviser to President Barack Obama and a leading Iranian nuclear official that have continued in secret for more than a year, Israeli television reported Sunday....

White House spokesman Bernadette Meehan was quoted by Haaretz as saying that the report was “absolutely, 100 percent false.”

The report, which relied on unnamed senior Israeli officials, said the US team to the secret talks was led by Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett. Her primary interlocutor, the report said, was the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi. The talks have been taking place in various Gulf states.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 15, 2013 13 Comments

Not sure I agree with the linkage of Obama's broken promise that you can keep your insurance plan and his promise that Iran will not get nukes. One he knew was false at the time he made the promise, the other was, um, ...

Posted by David Gerstman on November 14, 2013 4 Comments
Let's review some of the administration's diplomatic activity over the past week. Lee Smith:
Haaretz reports that the administration misled Israel regarding the terms of the proposed interim agreement with Iran over its nuclear weapons program. One senior Israeli official explained that on Wednesday Israel had seen an outline that the Israelis “didn't love but could live with.” Thursday morning French and British officials, and not the White House, told the Israelis that the terms had changed and were much more favorable than what they’d been shown previously. “Suddenly it changed to something much worse that included a much more significant lifting of sanctions,” said the Israeli official. “The feeling was that the Americans are much more eager to reach an agreement than the Iranians.”
Natan B. Sachs lays out some of the particulars.
On substance, the Israelis, like the French, appear very concerned about the provisions of the interim deal that: (a) permitted Tehran to continue some uranium enrichment; (b) allowed Iran to continue building the heavy water reactor in Arak (with only an Iranian commitment not to activate it), which would preserve the Iranian short-cut to nuclear capabilities via a plutonium — rather than uranium — track; and, most notably, (c) provided Tehran with incentives that the Israelis see as the beginning of the dismantling of the sanctions regime. Israel’s concern is that the proposed sanctions relief will not, in practice, be reversible, while the Iranian commitments could be easily reversed (and in the case of Arak will not even be halted).
The French objections to the deal led the P5+1 countries to demand more of Iran, so the Iranian team left without a deal to return for consultations.
Accessibility by WAH