Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Iran Tag

Posted by Amy Miller on April 28, 2015 13 Comments
We are head-first through the looking glass, people. The Ayatollah of Iran is trolling us on Twitter:
Addressing the 20th annual General Congress of Law Enforcement Forces (LEF) Commanders and Staff on Sunday, Iran’s Supreme Leader criticized American police, saying their “authority is wrong and oppressive.” Khamenei took to Twitter to rail against U.S. law enforcement who he says utilize “power and tyranny” to “kill innocents” amid ongoing riots over the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore. ... Khamenei, who is a Muslim Cleric, touted the religion of Islam for its balance of mercy and justice. “Power with cruelty isn’t favored by #Islam. #Police should embody justice and mercy while being potent,” he tweeted.
Behold, the power of the internet:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on April 28, 2015 15 Comments
Earlier this morning, Al Arabiya reported Iranians boarded a U.S. ship. That report quickly changed to, "Iran has opened fire at a U.S. cargo ship and directed it to Bandar Abbas port on the southern coast of Iran." The BBC, Reuters, and the Telegraph picked up the story, regurgitating Al Arabiya's scoop. So what really happened? While the story is still developing, here's what we know thus far: The ship was not a U.S. cargo ship. The cargo vessel is part of the Maersk line.

Posted by Amy Miller on April 27, 2015 2 Comments
Earlier this month, officials with the United Nations had a delicate situation on their hands. The situation in Yemen was spiraling, and their best laid plans were quickly being turned to rubble as Saudi coalition airstrikes smashed through key territory in an effort to protect strategic port cities from the advance of Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. The international community was concerned. For both Saudi and Iran, the airstrikes represented a turning point in discussions that had spiraled from tense to impossible; the UN fired (he "resigned," officially) envoy and Moroccan diplomat Jamal Benomar, citing his apparent inability to get the warring factions to play nicely, and doubled down on the diplomacy narrative as world leaders began to express impatience with the bloodshed. Benomar has now opened up to the media, accusing Saudi of derailing an impending peace deal in Yemen and solidifying already-stubborn positions on who should be involved in Yemen's democratic political process. From the Wall Street Journal:

Posted by David Gerstman on April 27, 2015 9 Comments
Yesterday afternoon Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon warned Iran not to arm Hezbollah.
“Iran continues to try and arm Hezbollah and it is striving to arm the Lebanese terror group with advanced weapons in every way it can, and by using every avenue,” Ya’alon said in a speech at Israel’s military headquarters in Tel Aviv. “We will not allow the transfer of sophisticated weapons to terror groups, and in particular Hezbollah.” “We know how to reach [Hezbollah] and those who direct it, at any time and any place,” Ya’alon continued. “We will not allow Hezbollah to establish a terror infrastructure on our borders with Syria, and we know how to lay our hands on anyone who threatens Israeli citizens, along our borders or even far from them.”
It wasn't clear if Ya'alon was referring to airstrikes targeting weapons depots in Syria, attributed to Israel, that occurred Wednesday and Saturday last week, or if he was threatening future action. Subsequent to Ya'alon's talk it appeared that he may have intended both.

Posted by Amy Miller on April 20, 2015 11 Comments
Earlier today, I wrote about how tensions escalated in Yemen after a Saudi airstrike allegedly hit targets close to the Iranian embassy in Sana'a, causing damage to the embassy itself, but no casualties. Houthi-controlled (read: Iranian-controlled) news outlets peddled the line that the airstrike had missed its intended target---a Sana'a arms depot---but photos and reports from the area have largely refuted that claim. Moral of the story? Things are tense in the Arabian Peninsula today---and it's about to get much worse, to the tune of an increased U.S. naval presence in the region.

Posted by Amy Miller on April 20, 2015 4 Comments
Over the past four weeks, Saudi Arabia has led a series of airstrikes aimed at quashing the spread and rise to power of Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen. Backed by the Iranian government, the Houthi have risen from obscurity to prominence. Once a regional threat, the group began late last year to branch out on more aggressive missions aimed at securing strategically important sites around the country. They moved into the capital city of Sana'a, and earlier this year managed to stage a violent and successful coup against the western-backed Hadi government. Iran's involvement---which they deny, of course---has been the subject of contention for coalition partners in the region, who argue that the Iranians are using the Houthi rebels as a proxy occupation force and means to greater control over the increasingly volatile Arabian Peninsula. Similarly, Saudi's airstrikes against Houthi advancement have been painted not as strategic, but as an unnecessary attack on civilians caught in the crossfire. Today, Iran released a statement alleging that one Saudi Airstrike hit too close to the Iranian embassy in Sana'a, shattering windows and causing damage but fortunately not injuring anyone inside.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 18, 2015 23 Comments
One of my early posts at Legal Insurrection, on November 11, 2008, was Is It Time For Conservatives To Sit Down In The Snow?. The post analogized what conservatives were about to experience in the aftermath of Obama's first victory to the experience of Soviet Jewish Refusenik Anatoly (Nathan) Sharansky. I related the story of Sharansky's release from the Soviet gulag, and how he resisted to the very last moment of his release:
Sharansky spend almost a decade in Soviet prison because of his activities on behalf of Jews who wanted to emigrate to Israel. Sharansky was subjected to torture and other indignities, but never lost his spirit.Sharansky notoriously refused to obey even the most mundane orders from his captors. Sharansky understood that to compromise even a little would lead to compromising a lot. Throughout his ordeal, Sharansky kept his spirits alive by reading a small book of psalms. As Sharansky was being led to the airplane that would take him from the Soviet Union to East Germany for the exchange, the Soviets confiscated his book of psalms.It would have been easy for Sharansky simply to keep walking towards the plane and freedom. But Sharansky understood that the Soviets confiscated his book of psalms not because they wanted the book, but because they wanted to show that even in this last moment, they were in control.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 17, 2015 20 Comments
“This is the new America. We had better get used to it.” Those were the words of an Israeli TV analyst upon learning that Obama is open to negotiating an immediate lifting of sanctions on Iran as part of a nuclear deal -- the exact opposite of what he and others in the administration have been saying. https://youtu.be/CqXrW_-pzR4?t=1m17s The Times of Israel reports on the development, Obama says US open to talks with Iran on immediately lifting sanctions:
President Barack Obama on Friday left open the door to “creative negotiations” in response to Iran’s demand that punishing sanctions be immediately lifted as part of a nuclear deal, even though the initial agreement calls for the penalties to be removed over time.... “How sanctions are lessened, how we snap back sanctions if there’s a violation, there are a lot of different mechanisms and ways to do that,” Obama said. He said part of the job for Secretary of State John Kerry and the representatives of five other nations working to reach a final deal with Iran by June 30 “is to sometimes find formulas that get to our main concerns while allowing the other side to make a presentation to their body politic that is more acceptable.”

Posted by David Gerstman on April 15, 2015 10 Comments
There have been a number of reactions to the Corker-Menendez bill, which provides for Congressional oversight of whatever nuclear deal the administration makes with Iran. It passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday with a 19-0 vote. J. E. Dyer at Liberty Unyielding looks at the numbers and sees the bill as a loss.
If Congress rejects the Iran deal, and the president vetoes its legislation, Congress will have the balance of a 52-day period to override the veto. If the Senate finds itself unable to act, at some point in this process, Obama’s deal can be implemented without assent from the Senate. To override a veto, of course, opponents will need 67 votes. To uphold a veto, Obama just has to make sure there are 34 votes for his deal. He doesn’t have to have even 51 votes to implement it. With 34, he’s got a major win. The beauty of this for Obama is that he still gets a win if the Senate at any point can’t bring a floor vote. His deal just gets implemented because the Senate failed to act. So it won’t matter if the president has 34 votes for the Iran deal, but not enough to bring the deal to a vote. The win for Obama is merely less photogenic in that case. The effect is the same.

Posted by Amy Miller on April 12, 2015 6 Comments
Potentially-big news out of Yemen. We've provided quite a bit of coverage on a rebel group called the Houthi. The Houthi are an Iranian-backed Shia rebel group currently gaining ground in Yemen. Earlier this year, they moved out of their territory in the north and seized control of the capital city of Sana'a, sending the President and government officials on the run to the important port city of Aden. Iran has repeatedly denied supporting the Houthi. To admit supporting the rebel group would be to admit supporting the increased threat to the shared border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, and responsibility for upping tensions in the region. The era of denial may have come to an end this weekend. Local militiamen claim that during Friday night's fighting, they captured two Iranian military officers---a colonel and a captain, specifically---advising Houthi rebels in Aden. An initial investigation allegedly placed the two men with the Quds Force, the special forces division of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Militia members have indicated that they will be handed over to the Saudi-led coalition.

Posted by Amy Miller on April 10, 2015 12 Comments
We already know that there's a lot the White House isn't telling us when it comes to the nuclear scam deal "framework" it claims to have worked out with the Iranians. Yesterday, Professor Jacobson explained that after the "framework" was announced, it became almost immediately apparent that the US, Europe, and Iran were not on the same page about how the deal was supposed to work. Then, David Gerstman penned a great takedown of the Administration's claims that the protocols in the framework (yes, the same framework we can't explain with any consistency) strengthen those in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Even Dick Cheney has chimed in, saying what we're all thinking: I think [Obama's] actions are constituted in my mind those of the worst president we’ve ever had. Yesterday, Senator John McCain talked with radio host Hugh Hewitt about the non-deal---and the White House is not happy about it. During the interview, McCain laid it all bare when he said that, with regards to the framework, "John Kerry is delusional.”

Posted by David Gerstman on April 09, 2015 9 Comments
I visited the State Department's website earlier this week and I was greeted by an item hailing the 45th anniversary of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). After hailing the treaty the article goes on to say more explicitly, "[i]f we didn’t already have the NPT, we would desperately need it today." A couple of paragraphs later the article boasts about the latest efforts to strengthen the NPT.
The United States is committed to strengthening the nonproliferation regime and the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency to implement nuclear safeguards -- a set of measures to verify that nuclear materials are used for peaceful purposes. The Treaty provides the foundation and context to resolve outstanding challenges to the nuclear nonproliferation regime. The ongoing negotiations with Iran provide the best diplomatic path forward for Iran to return to full compliance with the NPT. The IAEA instills confidence among all NPT parties that a state’s civil nuclear energy is not being diverted into a nefarious weapons program. In New York, the United States will promote the IAEA Additional Protocol, now recognized as the foremost international standard for safeguards that provides the IAEA with the authority to ensure that all nuclear material is used for peaceful purposes, in accordance with the NPT.

Posted by Amy Miller on April 09, 2015 27 Comments
Back in 2012, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood before the body of the United Nations with a piece of poster board and a red marker. During the two weeks prior to that moment, he had been waging a public battle with the Obama Administration over the dangerous progression of Iran's nuclear program---sound familiar---and made the decision to cut through the rhetoric in hopes that a visual aid might wake up the rest of the world. So, he picked up his marker and drew a literal red line that served as an ultimatum: “At this late hour there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs, and that is by placing a clear red line on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.” Remember? NATIONS-articleLarge Yesterday, the Obama paid passive-aggressive homage to Netanyahu's famous "bomb" with one of their own:

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:
Accessibility by WAH