Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Iran Tag

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.

Posted by David Gerstman on November 12, 2013 7 Comments
Aside from the specific problems with the potential deal between the so-called P5+1 and Iran (and the way it's reported), there's a historical precedent that's troubling. One of the reasons many in the West saw Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's election as a harbinger for rapprochement with Iran was because when Rouhani was Iran's lead nuclear negotiator a decade ago, the West (specifically Britain, France and Germany) and Iran reached a deal. Here's how the Financial Times described what happened: "Western governments will welcome Mr Rohani as a leader they can deal with – it was under his watch as chief nuclear negotiator that Iran had temporarily suspended its uranium enrichment a decade ago." Similar sentiments have been "reported" elsewhere. If that's the reason to be hopeful for an agreement with Iran, it's even more of a reason to suspect Iran's motives now that Rouhani's in charge of the country. In 2006, Rouhani boasted how he had duped the West. It was a boast that he repeated again in an interview before the elections in Iran earlier this year, Rouhani was anxious to show that he was not too moderate to lead the country.

Far from honoring the commitment, in which Iran said “it has decided voluntarily to suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities,” Rouhani told the interviewer that all Iran did was merely suspend “ten centrifuges” in the Natanz enrichment facility. “And not a total suspension. Just reduced the yield.”

Unimpressed, interviewer Abedini asserted that work had been suspended at the UCF — the Uranium Enrichment Facility at Isfahan. Quite the contrary, Rouhani countered, detailing the completion of various phases of work at Isfahan under his watch in 2004 and 2005. He went on to state proudly that the Iranian heavy water reactor at Arak was also developed under his watch, in 2004. ...

Posted by David Gerstman on November 11, 2013 2 Comments
Over the past few days the reporting from Geneva changed from anticipation of an imminent deal to a final "no deal." Or "no deal" for now. The New York Times reported Talks With Iran Fail to Produce a Nuclear Agreement. As almost all reporting on the P5+1 talks with Iran go it gives the credit to (or places the blame on) France for the failure of the two sides to reach an agreement.
The proposal under consideration in Geneva was to have been the first stage of a multipart agreement. It called for Iran to freeze its nuclear program for up to six months to allow negotiations on a long-term agreement without the worry that Iran was racing ahead to build a bomb. In exchange, the West was to have provided some easing of the international sanctions that have battered Iran’s economy. After years of off-again, on-again talks, the deal would have been the first to brake Iran’s nuclear program.Despite the diplomats’ insistence on progress, the failure to clinch an agreement raised questions about the future of the nuclear talks, given the fierce criticism that the mere prospect of a deal whipped up in Israel and among Republicans and some Democrats in Congress.
Unfortunately, this frames the scuttling of the talks in terms of those looking for a compromise versus pro-Israel ideologues. Subsequent reporting in the article is more specific about some, but not all, of the real issues involved.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 09, 2013 38 Comments
With a fevered and frantic breathless pace, Obama via John Kerry has been pushing to sign a sell-out deal with Iran that would ease sanctions without shutting down Iran's nuke program. Benjamin Netanyahu was furious when he found out that Kerry had misrepresented what the proposed agreement would be, not to mention Kerry running at the mouth to bash Israel on the talks with the Palestinians. Netanyahu was not alone.  France was uncomfortable with the deal Kerry wanted to sign, even as Kerry huddled with the Iranians trying to get 'er done. Thank you France for at least buying us some time to prevent the historic sell out of Israel that was in the offing as recently as early today. Via NY Times, Talks with Iran Fail to Produce a Nuclear Pact:
In the end, though, it was not only divisions between Iran and the major powers that prevented a deal, but fissures within the negotiating group. Earlier in the day, France objected strenuously that a proposed deal would do too little to curb Iran’s uranium enrichment or to stop the development of a nuclear reactor capable of producing plutonium.

“The Geneva meeting allowed us to advance, but we were not able to conclude because there are still some questions to be addressed,” the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, told reporters.

The Times of Israel reports:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 08, 2013 35 Comments

We are on the cusp of the most historic sell-out of Israel by any United States administration. We told you all along that in his second term Obama would impose a settlement on Israel according to what he viewed as reasonable: Obama will force his vision of a...

Posted by David Gerstman on November 05, 2013 0 Comments
We have noted degree to which America's media, including Thomas Erdbrink, the Tehran bureau chief for the New York Times, tells us that the most vicious anti-American statements from Iran are really expressions of admiration. Check out a few of Erdbrink's recent tweets. https://twitter.com/ThomasErdbrink/status/397332815559151616 https://twitter.com/ThomasErdbrink/status/397332340931706880 Erdbrink calls Jalili a hardliner. But in a recent article he reported on Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei as not being a hardliner:
With talks over Iran’s nuclear program set to resume in Geneva this week, both sides engaged in a bit of public diplomacy Sunday: Iran’s supreme leader moved to quiet hard-liners in his country by expressing support for his negotiating team, while the chief American negotiator reiterated in an Israeli television interview that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds Iran’s final word on the nuclear talks, told a group of students here that he was not optimistic the negotiations would succeed, but he also sent a negative message to the conservative clerics and military commanders who in recent weeks have attacked the diplomatic initiative.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 04, 2013 10 Comments
I had to laugh listening to the audio of the NY Times Tehran Bureau Chief explaining away the intensified and widespread chants of Death to America on the streets of Tehran as not really meaning "Death to America" (h/t Althouse):
On this 34th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, thousands of Iranians gathered outside that building to once again chant "Death to America." But New York Times Bureau Chief Thomas Erdbrink told NPR's Steve Inskeep on Monday that though the shouts were the same as they've been since 1979 and the demonstration was larger than in recent years, the people he interviewed there were not virulently anti-American. "All the people I spoke with," Erbrink said, "didn't really mind Iran talking to the United States ... [and they] admitted they want to see some sort of solution" to three-plus decades of fractured relations.
I laughed not because the subject is funny, but because it reminded me of left-wing guru Professor Juan Cole from March 2009, insisting that when they chant Death to American in Iran, they really mean "could you get me a visa, I'd really like to visit Disneyland" (video below, at 3:08):

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 02, 2013 2 Comments

But you knew that, because we have been following the antics of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for years. Erdogan blames the Jews for Egypt and he has video! (so do we) Turkish Deputy Prime Minister blames “Jewish Diaspora” for Gezi Park protests Turkish Prime Minister drops...

Posted by David Gerstman on October 30, 2013 6 Comments
Last week as we noted, the New York Times ran a devastating article about President Obama's Syria policy. The Times reported, among other things, that the President was disinterested in planning discussions about Syria. Two other articles reported that America's Middle East allies generally and the Saudis specifically were upset by the administration's Middle East policy. I guess that the New York Times had enough serious reporting about the shortcomings of the Obama administration's Middle East policy, because over the weekend, it published Rice Offers a More Modest Strategy for Mideast by its foremost White House cheerleader, Mark Landler. (Landler contributed to the Syria report, but was not one of the bylined reporters.)
Each Saturday morning in July and August, Susan E. Rice, President Obama’s new national security adviser, gathered half a dozen aides in her corner office in the White House to plot America’s future in the Middle East. The policy review, a kind of midcourse correction, has set the United States on a new heading in the world’s most turbulent region. At the United Nations last month, Mr. Obama laid out the priorities he has adopted as a result of the review. The United States, he declared, would focus on negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, brokering peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and mitigating the strife in Syria. Everything else would take a back seat.
The article goes on to point out that even Egypt was no longer a priority. In a jab at President Obama's predecessor we learn:

Posted by David Gerstman on October 27, 2013 13 Comments
Recently, after the first round of nuclear talks with Iran had concluded one of the American negotiators said: "... I have never had such intense, detailed, straightforward, candid conversations with the Iranian delegation before." The word that bothered me most in that declaration was "candid." How did Iranian foreign minister start kick of the negotiations? He started it with a widely reported PowerPoint presentation titled "An End to the Unnecessary Crisis and a Beginning for Fresh Horizons." There's a word that sticks out there too, "unnecessary."

Posted by David Gerstman on October 24, 2013 20 Comments
Yesterday's New York Times featured an article Obama’s Uncertain Path Amid Syria Bloodshed that is probably one of the most devastating indictments of the President's Syria policy published. I don't think that the reporters set out to critique the President and the tone of the article was always respectful. https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/393101410037821440 Still there are two description that really stuck out. The first was a general critique.
As one former senior White House official put it, “We spent so much damn time navel gazing, and that’s the tragedy of it.”
Over the past two years the article describes the various rationales the administration had for not intervening and that sentence turns out to be a very apt theme for the way the administration acted, or, more precisely, chose not to act. Then there was this:
Even as the debate about arming the rebels took on a new urgency, Mr. Obama rarely voiced strong opinions during senior staff meetings. But current and former officials said his body language was telling: he often appeared impatient or disengaged while listening to the debate, sometimes scrolling through messages on his BlackBerry or slouching and chewing gum.
One would have assumed that a Syria policy was one of the two most important foreign policy issues facing the President. (The other is the question of Iran's nuclear policy.) Being "disengaged" during such momentous discussions is worse than being engaged but making bad decisions. https://twitter.com/tobyharnden/status/393025446348349441  
Accessibility by WAH