Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Iran Tag

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.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 22, 2015 12 Comments
Today the UN Security Council will hold an emergency meeting to discuss the devolving situation in Yemen. The council will meet in a closed session at 3 p.m. EDT. Earlier this year the UN condemned the Houthi siege on Sana'a and the subsequent attack on the sitting government. Deposed President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi called for UN action yesterday:
Hadi sounded a defiant note from his base in the south on Saturday, threatening action against the Houthis’ northern stronghold. “We shall deliver the country to safety and raise Yemen’s flag on Mount Marran in Saadeh instead of the Iranian flag,” he said in a televised speech, his first since reaching Aden. Iran is an ally of the Houthis, who belong to a Shia Muslim sect. The Houthis, in a statement from their Supreme Revolutionary Committee, did not directly respond to the speech but called for a “general mobilisation” of the armed forces against a “dirty war” they said was being waged by militias loyal to Hadi.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 21, 2015 6 Comments
Things just keep getting worse for the US military in Yemen. What was remaining of the US military presence in Yemen has been---or is in the process of---evacuating the region after attacks by both Shiite Houthi rebels and al-Qaeda forces caused a breakdown in security.
In their statement, the rebels described their coming offensive against security and military institutions loyal to President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi as a battle against extremists. Their appeal came just minutes after Hadi gave a defiant speech challenging the Houthis, his first address broadcast to the public since fleeing Sanaa last month. He described the rebels' rule in Sanaa and elsewhere as "a coup against constitutional legitimacy." The U.S. troops, including Special Forces commandos, were leaving the al-Annad air base near the southern city of al-Houta, Yemeni military and security officials said. Speaking on condition of anonymity as they weren't authorized to discuss troop movements, the officials did not say whether the troops had left the country. Some 100 American troops and Special Forces commandos are believed to be stationed there. U.S. officials declined immediate comment Saturday.
Fox News has more:

Posted by Amy Miller on March 18, 2015 7 Comments
Earlier this year, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels evolved from regional threat into formidable occupation force. They moved out of their strongholds in north Yemen to threaten, menace, and finally occupy the capital city of Sana'a. Conditions deteriorated to the point where the U.S. embassy was forced to evacuate; reports quickly surfaced that the evacuation was botched, and questions arose about the status of weapons, vehicles, and other military aid supplies left behind when US forces left the region. Without an available surveillance infrastructure, the Defense Department has been unable to monitor the movement of small arms and other supplies, and now the Pentagon has come forward saying that they're unable to account for $500 million worth of supplies. From the Washington Post:
In recent weeks, members of Congress have held closed-door meetings with U.S. military officials to press for an accounting of the arms and equipment. Pentagon officials have said that they have little information to go on and that there is little they can do at this point to prevent the weapons and gear from falling into the wrong hands. “We have to assume it’s completely compromised and gone,” said a legislative aide on Capitol Hill who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. U.S. military officials declined to comment for the record. A defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the Pentagon, said there was no hard evidence that U.S. arms or equipment had been looted or confiscated. But the official acknowledged that the Pentagon had lost track of the items.
Who likely got their hands on it? Either al Qaeda, or the Houthi---and neither prospect offers much hope for their return. WaPo created an infographic displaying military aid the US has sent to Yemen since 2010:

Posted by David Gerstman on March 16, 2015 15 Comments
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday (Google link) that Secretary of State John Kerry is still upset about the open letter Sen. Tom Cotton (R - Ark.) wrote last week that was signed by 46 other Republican senators arguing that it was Congress' role to review treaties.
Mr. Kerry said on Saturday in Egypt that these American lawmakers were “wrong.” “It is almost inevitable it will raise questions in the minds of the folks with whom we’re negotiating as to whether or not they are negotiating with the executive department and the president, which is what the constitution says, or whether there are 535 members of Congress,” Mr. Kerry told reporters in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. “Let me make clear to Iran…that from our point of view, this letter is incorrect in its statements,” he added. “As far as we are concerned, the Congress has no ability to change an executive agreement.”
It strikes me as odd that Kerry is doubling down on his non-binding argument. An executive agreement is not binding, unlike a treaty, and therefore not subject to Congressional review. It's also odd that he claims, "as far as we are concerned." Shouldn't the Constitution be the standard by which the Republican claims are judged? Finally, there's Kerry's famous declaration at the time the Joint Plan of Action was signed in November 2013 that the agreement was not based on trust. So if the agreement is not based on trust and it's non-binding what "mechanism" will there to be verify that Iran isn't overtly or covertly pursuing an illicit nuclear program? More and more I'm convinced that Cotton's reason for writing the letter was to smoke out the administration on this point.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 16, 2015 13 Comments
Last week, Senator Tom Cotton and 46 other Republican Senators penned an open letter to Iranian leaders, reiterating Congress's constitutionally-guaranteed roll in negotiations with foreign powers. Democrats responded by mounting their high horses and leading the charge against the '47 Traitors.' But that was last week. A peek behind the curtain of political theatre reveals a different play altogether. Yesterday, Burgess Everett of Politico reported that a dozen Senate Democrats are prepared to support legislation that could undermine the President's Iran deal. Although, the Democrats responding to Politico wanted to make clear that THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE GOP's LETTER TO IRAN. In a fabulous turn of events that could only transpire within the D.C. Beltway, that whole '47 Traitor' thing was revealed as nothing more than a political play; an opportunity for the administration to take bipartisan support for Congressional power and drive a wedge between Democrats and Republicans. President Obama's "don't you know who I am?!" gig wasn't a total loss though. Senate Republicans served up a chance for the President to spike the ball firmly within partisan territory. While the public relations front was a loss for Senate Republicans (just Google 'senate' and 'Iran' and enjoy the numerous headlines painting Senate Republicans as veritable Benedict Arnold doppelgangers), what comes next will likely be an even greater embarrassment for President Obama than any letter. Obama's Congressional sidestep is at risk of being shoved back in line by 'traitors' and a bevy of Democrats who agree with them. Political math indicates that 54 Republicans + 12 Democrats = veto proof majority the 60 day Congressional review mandate. As we discussed last week, Congress has little say in the current Iran deal because the Obama administration has opted to negotiate a non-binding agreement. Non-binding agreements hold the same type of power as an executive order. Where Corker's bill becomes a problem for the President is that, “An executive agreement never overrides inconsistent legislation and is incapable of overriding any of the sanctions legislation,” says David Rivkin, a constitutional litigator with Baker Hostetler, LLP who served in the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush Administrations. “A treaty that has been submitted for Senate’s advise and consent and if it’s self-executing could do that,” Armin Rosen of Yahoo News reported last week.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 13, 2015 15 Comments
Rep. Jared Polis started calling Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton "Tehran Tom" after word got out that the Senator had led a coalition of 47 Republicans in the drafting of a letter to Iran. The "#47Traitors" hashtag took off on Twitter, and over 200,000 people have signed a petition accusing those senators of violating the Logan Act. You'd think we'd never seen anything like this before, right? Well, that's exactly what progressives want you to think. Tom Cotton may have caused a scandal, but he hasn't come close to the misdeeds of Democrats who came before him.

1983: Kennedy appeals to Moscow

ted_kennedy_and_the_soviets-620x382 In 1991, the London Times published a memo pulled from the Soviet archives offering proof that in 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy worked with an old law school friend by the name of John Tunney to relay a message from himself to Yuri Andropov, a top official in Russia's Communist regime.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 12, 2015 5 Comments
The recent move from the Texas Governor's Mansion hasn't quelled Governor Perry's passion for all things American. Since creating RickPAC last year, Governor Perry has travelled the country spreading his message. Securing the border and as a byproduct, national security, are part of Perry's message. Yesterday, RickPAC released a video calmly hammering President Obama for his 'weakness and fecklessness' on the international stage: "There's a lot of talk in America today about leadership and America's role and security on the international stage. As someone who believes America is the greatest force for freedom and prosperity in the world, it's frustrating to see the president shuffle from one crisis to the next, and to hear his words ring hollow when there should be unwavering resolve. But let's step back for a minute and imagine the view from the outside. Imagine how the president's weakness and fecklessness are received by both our friends and our enemies. Imagine the view from Tehran, as they're trying to negotiate a nuclear agreement with the United States. They see the leader of the western countries scrambling to get Vladimir Putin to sign a piece of paper that he'll completely ignore within hours."

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 11, 2015 31 Comments
In October, the New York Times reported President Obama intended to fly solo on Iranian negotiations. "But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it," they reported. Fast forward to Monday, when freshman Senator Tom Cotton kicked a hornet's nest. Joined by 46 Republican Senators, Senator Cotton wrote an open letter to Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The letter was an exposition of the Constitutionally guaranteed Congressional role in international agreements. Most notably, a reminder that international agreements arranged by the President are non-binding until they've received Congressional approval. President Obama responded, accusing participating Senate Republicans of allying themselves with Iranian hardliners, "I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members for Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran. It's an unusual coalition," Obama said Monday ahead of a meeting with European Council President Donald Tusk." Vice President Joe Biden weighed in calling the letter "beneath the dignity of [the Senate,] an institution I revere." And then the Democratic dog pile began. Iran too, responded. Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif called the letter a propaganda ploy and proceeded with a self-righteous lecture on international law:
I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.
Zarif's statement isn't exactly incorrect, but it in no way negates the fact that for any agreement involving the United States to be a binding agreement on the international stage, it must first pass Congressional scrutiny... which is exactly what Senator Cotton and his 46 compadres pointed out. Conversely, any agreement reached without Congressional consent is not legally binding.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 08, 2015 4 Comments
Didn't take long to drop some "we're still working on this" language, did it? The Obama Administration may have played their high-profile troubles over the pending Iran nuclear deal as a grudge match between the U.S. and Israel, but the Israelis aren't the only ones with questions about the President's "all or nothing" deal. France has a history of raising questions about how far the international community is and has been willing to go to gain concessions from Iran regarding its nuclear program. Recently, the French have publicly raised concerns that commitments made by Iran don't go far enough to ensure that any future nuclear program will make allowances for a system of inspections and verifications ensuring that the program is compliant with international standards. Secretary of State John Kerry has been busy over the weekend running damage control over France's most recent objections. Via Reuters:
"We are on the same page," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters after talks with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius in Paris. "If we didn’t think that there was further to go, as Laurent said, we’d have had an agreement already," Kerry added. "The reason we don't have an agreement is we believe there are gaps that have to be closed, there are things that have to be done to further strengthen this; we know this." The goal of the talks is to persuade Iran to restrain its nuclear program. In exchange, Iran would get limited relief from sanctions that have crippled its economy. EU's foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, says the next two weeks will be crucial: "In the coming few days, there will be intense work from all sides to bridge the gaps that are still remaining and to make sure that this historic opportunity is not missed."
Watch:
Accessibility by WAH