We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication.
Nuclear Talks With Iran to Miss Second Deadline in Seven Days: Michael Wilner, Jerusalem Post, July 7, 2015 — World powers and Iran will not meet a self-imposed deadline for a comprehensive nuclear agreement scheduled for July 7, and will extend their interim agreement until July 10.
The U.S. Response to Iran’s Cheating is a Worrying Omen: Washington Post, July 6, 2015— If it is reached in the coming days, a nuclear deal with Iran will be, at best, an unsatisfying and risky compromise.
Iran Deal: Bleak Prospects for Serious Breakthrough: Jagdish N. Singh, Jewish Press, July 6, 2015 — Although the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China plus Germany and Iran have agreed to extend the deadline to July 7, prospects of any real breakthrough in the matter are bleak .
Obama Wants a Bad Iran Deal at Any Price: Noah Beck, Algemeiner, July 6, 2015 — Much has been written about just how bad the proposed Iranian nuclear deal has gotten.
Iran Wants U.N. Arms Embargo Lifted: Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2015
On-Going Debate Over Iran’s Newly Produced LEU Hexafluoride: David Albright and Andrea Stricker, ISIS Nuclear Iran, July 3, 2015
The Fundamental Flaws of the Emerging Nuclear Deal: Mark Dubowitz & Annie Fixler, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, June 19, 2015
On Iran, Worry About the Deal, Not the Deadline: Dennis Ross, Politico, July 6, 2014
Iran Nuclear Talks Complicated by Dispute Over Missiles and Arms: David Blair, Telegraph, July 6, 2015
NUCLEAR TALKS WITH IRAN TO MISS SECOND DEADLINE IN SEVEN DAYS
Michael Wilner
Jerusalem Post, July 7, 2015
World powers and Iran will not meet a self-imposed deadline for a comprehensive nuclear agreement scheduled for July 7, and will extend their interim agreement until July 10. Negotiations are at their most "difficult" and "real" phase, the European Union's foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, told press gathered outside the Palais Coburg in Austria's capital. The diplomatic effort has now been under way for two years. "We are continuing to negotiate for the next couple of days. This does not mean we are extending our deadline," she said.
US Secretary of State John Kerry's senior advisor for strategic communications, Marie Harf, said that negotiators are "frankly more concerned about the quality of the deal than we are about the clock." But they also are committed to concluding the process during this negotiating round, she added. "We also know that difficult decisions won't get any easier with time," Harf said. "We are taking these negotiations day to day."
Mogherini characterized the talks as "difficult" and "tense." All parties agree that the negotiations are in their final stage, if not in their final hours. Departing the Coburg, Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, told Russian media that eight issues critical to a deal were still not finalized as negotiators entered their second deadline in seven days. Most foreign ministers would be leaving Vienna, but would return shortly, he said. "There is only one big problem in terms of sanctions," Lavrov said. "It is the problem of a weapons embargo."
The US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany had hoped to seal a comprehensive deal by June 30. Missing that deadline, they extended their effort to July 7. They seek to cap, restrict, monitor and partially roll back Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, after toiling with the prospect of a nuclear Iran for over a decade. Tehran wants that relief immediately.
THE U.S. RESPONSE TO IRAN’S CHEATING IS A WORRYING OMEN
Washington Post, July 6, 2015
If it is reached in the coming days, a nuclear deal with Iran will be, at best, an unsatisfying and risky compromise. Iran’s emergence as a threshold nuclear power, with the ability to produce a weapon quickly, will not be prevented; it will be postponed, by 10 to 15 years. In exchange, Tehran will reap hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief it can use to revive its economy and fund the wars it is waging around the Middle East.
Whether this flawed deal is sustainable will depend on a complex set of verification arrangements and provisions for restoring sanctions in the event of cheating. The schemes may or may not work; the history of the comparable nuclear accord with North Korea in the 1990s is not encouraging. The United States and its allies will have to be aggressive in countering the inevitable Iranian attempts to test the accord and willing to insist on consequences even if it means straining relations with friendly governments or imposing costs on Western companies.
That’s why a recent controversy over Iran’s compliance with the interim accord now governing its nuclear work is troubling. The deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium, but required that amounts over a specified ceiling be converted into an oxide powder that cannot easily be further enriched. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran met the requirement for the total size of its stockpile on June 30, but it did so by converting some of its enriched uranium into a different oxide form, apparently because of problems with a plant set up to carry out the powder conversion.
Rather than publicly report this departure from the accord, the Obama administration chose to quietly accept it. When a respected independent think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security, began pointing out the problem, the administration’s response was to rush to Iran’s defense — and heatedly attack the institute as well as a report in the New York Times.
This points to two dangers in the implementation of any longterm deal. One is “a U.S. willingness to legally reinterpret the deal when Iran cannot do what it said it would do, in order to justify that non-performance,” institute President David Albright and his colleague Andrea Stricker wrote. In other words, overlooking Iranian cheating is easier than confronting it.
This weakness is matched by a White House proclivity to respond to questions about Iran’s performance by attacking those who raise them. Mr. Albright, a physicist with a long record of providing non-partisan expert analysis of nuclear proliferation issues, said on the Foreign Policy Web site that he had been unfairly labeled as an adversary of the Iran deal and that campaign-style “war room” tactics are being used by the White House to fend off legitimate questions.
In the case of the oxide conversion, the discrepancy may be less important than the administration’s warped reaction. A final accord will require Iran to ship most of its uranium stockpile out of the country, or reverse its enrichment. But there surely will be other instances of Iranian non-compliance. If the deal is to serve U.S. interests, the Obama administration and its successors will have to respond to them more firmly and less defensively.
IRAN DEAL: BLEAK PROSPECTS FOR SERIOUS BREAKTHROUGH
Jagdish N. Singh
Jewish Press, July 6, 2015
Although the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China plus Germany and Iran have agreed to extend the deadline to July 7, prospects of any real breakthrough in the matter are bleak .
Knowledgeable sources say signs are ominous with seemingly irreconcilable differences between the two main parties in the dialogue, Washington and Tehran. American President Barack Obama has declared he would sign an agreement only after being assured it would prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. A major hitch is over including the inspection of Tehran’s military sites “anytime, anywhere– no bureaucratic committees, no moving the ball, no sites off limits.” Besides, Washington (and close allies) insist Tehran reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to 7.6 tons. According to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran’s stockpile of the fuel, which can be used to fuel a reactor or processed further for weapons, has grown to eight tons.
Washington argues no future risk can be allowed in regard to the alleged Iranian nuclear weapon program. Both of Iran’s now-declared facilities for processing uranium into fuel have the potential to power a reactor or manufacture a bomb and were developed under military cover, later to be to transferred to civilian authorities. Tehran is very unlikely to oblige Washington in this matter. In Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has the final word. He has reiterated he is opposed to any long-term freeze on Iran’s nuclear research and development, the full disclosure of past nuclear work, or inspections of military sites.
The sources say it would be hard for President Obama, even if he wished, to accommodate Tehran on such fundamental propositions. He has been under the scrutiny of the powerful US Senate. Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Bob Corker has recently written a letter accusing him of a “breathtaking” retreat from their ( P5+1) “original goals and statements” in the nuclear talks with Iran. The letter laments the negotiators “have moved” from a trying to strike a 20-year agreement, to a 10-year one and seem ready to let Tehran proceed with its ballistic missile program and research and development for advanced nuclear centrifuges.
The components necessary to achieving a good deal should include: anywhere, anytime inspections, including military sites; strict limits on centrifuge R&D; disclosure of Iran’s past atomic military work ; phased suspension of sanctions based upon Iran’s compliance with its obligations under a futuristic deal; and the creation of an effective mechanism to re-impose sanctions automatically in the event of any violations.
Unfortunately, the P5+1 seem prepared to accept a deal that does not include full disclosure of Iran’s past atomic research . They have promised to provide Iran with advanced nuclear technology. Their currently reported draft promises to supply Iran with light-water nuclear reactors instead of its nearly completed heavy-water facility at Arak, which could produce enough plutonium for several bombs a year if completed as planned. On its part, the Obama administration has deviated a lot from its original path in the matter. Initially, it demanded a “full suspension of uranium enrichment as required by multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions.” But now it is permitting Iran to continue enriching uranium with 5060 centrifuges. Initially, the administration insisted that Iran shut down Fordow but now over 1,000 centrifuges are to remain in this underground facility largely impenetrable to attack.
It would not be wise to rule out Iran’s atomic weapons designs in future. American Secretary of State John Kerry recently claimed that Washington has had “absolute knowledge” of Iran’s past atomic weapons work. The Secretary asserted, “It’s critical to us to know that going forward, those activities have been stopped.” But it is impossible to design an effective verification system that could measure breakout time or ensure atomic weapons “activities have been stopped.” Former Director of the CIA Michael Hayden has refuted even the Kerry claim that Washington has had perfect knowledge of the Iranian nuclear program. Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Yukiya Amano is on record having said, “We don’t know what they did in the past.”
The impending agreement allows Iran to conduct R&D on advanced centrifuges. Tehran would be able to install them after the expiration of “the sunset clause” and the breakout period may shrink to zero. Iran could reestablish Fordow as a uranium enrichment centrifuge plant with a capacity far in excess of its current capacity. It is a fortified facility built into a mountainside impervious to military attack. The sunset clause has to be replaced to satisfy Iran’s program is strictly for peaceful purposes. After 10 years there should be a vote to see if restrictions should be extended for another 10 years so as not to leave the world with “an even more insecure and heightened situation… in terms of a greatly reduced Iranian breakout timeline, and more advanced centrifuges spinning and capable of creating weapon-grade uranium…within shorter periods of time.”
The sources suggest economic sanctions may continue. Last winter, Tehran was facing a balance of payments crisis, and its economy was on the brink. The sanctions may rather be increased to give Iran the choice: “Face the heat or dismantle your nuclear program.”
Sources claim that with sanctions in place, Tehran has so far been ‘insensible. ’ Without them, it might be “insane.” The infusion of funds Tehran will receive from an emerging deal may bolster its support for terrorism in the region, particularly Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, and embolden it to crush human rights at home. Iran would receive around $ 30-50 simply for signing an agreement. The subsequent release of frozen funds and increased oil sales would leave Iran with more than $100 billion over the next year. Iran spends approximately $ 200 million per year on Hezbollah and up to $ 15 billion per year to support the authoritarian Assad regime in Syria. With more funds at its disposal, the Khomeninist regime would invest more in such activities.
The impending deal is likely to embolden Tehran to ignore the plight also of the Americans jailed in Iran. Iran currently holds three Americans known to be alive: Jason Rezaian, a Washington Post reporter, was imprisoned by Iran in 2014 and charged with espionage;, Saeed Abedini; and Amir Hekmati. The prisoners are held in Evin prison, one of Iran’s most notorious jails. Another American, retired FBI agent, Bob Levinson, went missing in Iran eight years ago. Levinson’s whereabouts remains unknown.
OBAMA WANTS A BAD IRAN DEAL AT ANY PRICE
Noah Beck
Algemeiner, July 6, 2015
Much has been written about just how bad the proposed Iranian nuclear deal has gotten. This outcome is hardly surprising after Israel’s former ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, bravely published Ally, his memoir detailing Obama’s hostility towards Israel. But even without Ambassador Michael Oren’s personal testimony, there is overwhelming evidence that – on the issue most important to global security and Israel’s very existence – Obama has been, at best, reckless and, at worst, treasonous.
Obama’s administration has shown a breathtaking readiness to cover for a wide range of abuses and violations by the same Iranian regime that seeks international acceptance of its nuclear activities. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz recently noted that theState Department was illegally delaying the publication of a report on Iranian human rights violations, which was due last February, to avoid adversely affecting the talks with Iran on its nuclear program.
According to a report by the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank, Iran has violated the current interim nuclear deal, the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA). The president of the institute, David Albright, noted that “When it became clear Iran could not meet its commitment to convert the LEU into uranium dioxide, the United States revised its criteria for Iran meetings its obligations.” Such leniency on a crucial compliance issue suggests that the world powers negotiating with Iran (the “P5+1”) will ignore or explain away Iranian violations of any future agreement over its nuclear program.
In another breach of the JPOA, Iran continues trying to acquire nuclear-related materials – some of which would be prohibited under the emerging deal. Reuters reported last May that the Czech government had uncovered an Iranian attempt to purchase a shipment of compressors from a U.S.-owned company based in Prague. These parts can be used to extract enriched uranium directly from the centrifuge cascades. In April, the British Government reportedly informed a UN panel about an illicit Iranian nuclear procurement network involving two firms under sanctions for suspected links to Iran’s nuclear activities. Iran fed uranium hexafluoride gas into an advanced centrifuge, yet another violation of the JPOA. In April 2014, Reuters reported that Iran’s oil exports were well above the monthly 1 million barrel-per-day limit imposed by the JPOA. If the P5+1 countenanced all of these Iranian violations of the JPOA, why would they be any more forceful when an even stronger Iran violates a permanent nuclear accord?
The news outlet Al-Monitor reported that the U.S. State Department is three years late in applying certain sanctions on Iran. The report provides more proof that the State Department is intentionally delaying sanctions on Iran in its quest to close a nuclear deal. The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration has pressured the CIA so that its analysts are now in an “impossible position regarding analysis of Iran’s nuclear program.”
Not only has the Obama administration ignored Iranian violations, it has also disregarded evidence that sanctions relief will only support Iran’s most dangerous policies. Under Iran’s “moderate” President Rouhani, spending on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the entity tasked with spreading Iranian influence abroad while suppressing dissent at home, has increased by 48%. Iran spends approximately $200 million per year on Hezbollah and up to $15 billion per year to support the Assad regime in Syria. (Apparently the Obama administration sees no contradiction in calling for Assad’s ouster while helping Iran to fund him by removing sanctions.) Former Senior Advisor on Iran at the State Department, Ray Takeyh, has warned that the “massive financial gains from [a sanctions-lifting nuclear] deal would enable [Iran’s] imperial surge.” Iran is now the main power broker in four Arab countries (Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria). So how much more powerful and aggressive will Iran become when sanctions are lifted and billions of dollars flow into its economy?
Obama has also disregarded his own former Iran and nonproliferation experts, who last month signed on to a letter warning that the emerging Iran deal may “fall short of the administration’s own standard.” Signatories include the White House’s former chief weapons of mass destruction advisor, Gary Samore, the Department of State’s former principal nonproliferation advisor, Robert Einhorn, the former director of the CIA, David Petraeus, the former special advisor on the Persian Gulf, Dennis Ross, and other notable officials and analysts. The letter asserts that the emerging deal will not dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and outlines the elements of a good deal. These include unlimited inspections, including military sites; strict limits on centrifuge R&D; disclosure of Iran’s past nuclear military work; phased sanctions-lifting that is tied to Iran’s compliance with the deal; and the creation of an effective mechanism to re-impose sanctions automatically in the event of an Iranian violation.
Iran’s breakout time under the emerging deal would be far less than the Obama administration’s estimate of one year, according to one proliferation expert and the former deputy director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In pursuit of this bad deal, Obama has not only covered for Iranian violations and ignored Iran’s continued ballistic missile developments, it has actually offered the Iranian regime nuclear technology. On what basis does Obama so trust a regime that, for decades, has been one of the most dangerous on the planet, and an arch foe of the U.S. and its closest Mideast allies? In another shocking example of that misplaced trust, the U.S. is sharing a base in Iraq with Iranian-backed Shiite militias, who have killed American soldiers in the past, despite concerns that doing so puts American soldiers at risk by allowing the militias to spy on U.S. operations at the base.
The overwhelming evidence all points to the same troubling question: in the nuclear faceoff between Iran and the West, whose side is Obama on? He may get his “legacy deal,” but it will include nuclear proliferation across the Middle East, an Iranian regime much more able to support terrorism and hegemonic policies, and the far greater prospect of nuclear terrorism and/or doomsday in the world’s most unstable region.
Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis
Iran Wants U.N. Arms Embargo Lifted: Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2015—Iran is pushing for a United Nations arms embargo to be completely lifted as part of the international community’s moves to improve relations with Tehran in the wake of an emerging nuclear agreement, a senior Iranian diplomat said Monday.
On-Going Debate Over Iran’s Newly Produced LEU Hexafluoride: David Albright and Andrea Stricker, ISIS Nuclear Iran, July 3, 2015 —The controversy over the status of Iran’s newly produced low enriched uranium (LEU) hexafluoride under the Joint Plan of Action (JPA) initially surprised us at ISIS.
The Fundamental Flaws of the Emerging Nuclear Deal: Mark Dubowitz & Annie Fixler, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, June 19, 2015—Under the emerging Iran nuclear agreement, there is an inherent asymmetry between an expanding Iranian nuclear program and diminishing economic leverage.
On Iran, Worry About the Deal, Not the Deadline: Dennis Ross, Politico, July 6, 2014—Just as June 30 turned out not to be a true deadline for the Iranian nuclear talks, it would be wise to treat July 7 — the extended deadline — much the same way.
Iran Nuclear Talks Complicated by Dispute Over Missiles and Arms: David Blair, Telegraph, July 6, 2015 —Iran’s foreign minister met his counterparts from six world powers on Monday, but the drive for a nuclear deal was complicated by a dispute over United Nations restrictions on missile technology and arms sales.
