GOP eyes AIPAC summit for Iran push

The policy conference will bring thousands of AIPAC members to Washington. | AP Photo

Republicans hope a powerful pro-Israel group’s Washington fly-in can turn the tide in their quest for a vote on new Iran sanctions.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s policy conference will bring thousands of AIPAC members to Washington beginning Sunday, a flood the GOP believes could help force reluctant Senate Democrats to vote on new economic penalties toward Iran.

Continue Reading

The debate over what to do with Iran’s nuclear program has caused tensions between AIPAC and congressional Republicans, many of whom don’t understand why the group is not putting more of its political muscle behind the effort.

And now more than ever Senate Republicans are in desperate need for Democratic support after an effort to attach penalties to a veterans bill failed this week and fueled partisan discord.

Republicans believe a new push from AIPAC could help change the minds of Democrats who are deferring to President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who believe a sanctions vote would destroy delicate ongoing diplomatic talks with Iran. But they might be disappointed: Despite supporting the bill’s goals, AIPAC appears to oppose an immediate vote on sanctions given the lack of Democratic support.

“Our view is that we strongly support the legislation. We believe that it should be voted on when it would have the broadest bipartisan support,” an AIPAC source said. “We thought there shouldn’t be an immediate vote [in order] to build support.”

That stance has Republicans scratching their heads, given that AIPAC could very well help build that bipartisan support by taking a harder line. Several GOP senators said in interviews this week they hear a more urgent tone from AIPAC’s local branches than from the national organization.

“I was puzzled by the statement they put out a few weeks ago saying that they no longer thought now was the time to vote. I’m not sure that reflects their membership,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). “I certainly think their membership does [want a vote]. That’s my impression from the meetings that I’ve had.”

“They are a very powerful and influential organization,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) “Sometimes, there’s been a disconnect between their leadership here in Washington and their rank-and-file.”

“The rank and file of AIPAC and just the average person who follows this has got to be very worried about the Senate’s inaction,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

A senior Senate aide closely following the issue said “there’s an incredible amount of tension” between local AIPAC chapters itching for quick movement on sanctions and a D.C. apparatus that understands the delicate politics of the issue.

The AIPAC source denied any internal derision.

“Absolutely not. There’s a very united feeling. I think people will witness the unity this weekend,” the source said.

Christians United for Israel — a group often aligned with AIPAC — has split with the powerful group on sanctions legislation, bombarding senators with thousands of email requests for a quick vote. CUFI’s executive Director David Brog said in an interview that “now’s the time for a vote” and he hopes AIPAC eventually agrees.

“I’m going to be watching and listening very carefully to what comes out of the AIPAC policy conference,” Brog said. “I am hoping they will do the right thing, which is pressing for an up-or-down vote on this bill, as they have in the past.”

Some Republicans and those who closely follow AIPAC believe it is already moving in that direction.

“I think they are becoming more involved because they understand the severity of the problem,”said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). “They were dormant for a while but I think they’re coming back. I think they will be vocal about the need to bring up a sanctions bill.”

“They’re looking to get this done,” said Dr. Ben Chouake, president of NORPAC, a contributor to candidates favoring Israel.

But AIPAC has given no indication that it will shift its public position toward an immediate vote, as Republicans hope the hawkish lobby will do. Much can happen during six months of continuing diplomatic talks aimed at finding a permanent agreement and AIPAC sees no reason to box itself in, sources familiar with the issue said.

And Reid has been such an immovable force on sanctions since Obama intervened that a change in AIPAC’s position may not even move the needle with the unbending Democratic leader, who will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday alongside Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a strong backer of the sanction bill.

“AIPAC is practicing the art of the possible and knows when to extend all of its clout and when not to,” said Maury Amitay, a former AIPAC executive director. “Why go to the wall and put a lot of guys who have been good friends and supporters on the topic in a tough spot?”

Manu Raju contributed to this report.

POLITICO – Congress

GOP eyes AIPAC summit for Iran push

White House says raised concerns with Iraq about report of arms deal with Iran

WASHINGTON Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:41pm EST

• Tweet


• 
  
• 
  
• Share this




• Email


• Print






A lone worker passes by the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, October 8, 2013.


Credit: Reuters/Jason Reed







WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. government raised concerns about a reported arms deal between Iraq and Iran “at the highest levels” with Iraq’s government, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Tuesday.




Carney said that the Iraq government has denied in a press release that any contracts were signed, and noted that the U.S. government will follow up with Iraq on the issue.




(Reporting by Roberta Rampton; Editing by Sandra Maler)





• Tweet this


• Link this


• Share this


• Digg this


• Email


• Print


• Reprints




We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/




Comments (0)


Be the first to comment on reuters.com.


Add yours using the box above.

Reuters: Politics

White House says raised concerns with Iraq about report of arms deal with Iran

Iran warns of sectarian strife in Iraq

Iraqis gather at the site of a car bombing in central Baghdad on January 15, 2014.

Iran has strongly condemned the terrorist attacks in Iraq, warning against plots to cause sectarian and religious strife in the country.

Nearly 50 people have been killed by a series of car bomb explosions in the Iraqi capital and the southern city of Hillah on Tuesday. No group has immediately claimed responsibility for the explosions.

“Undoubtedly, terrorists and their allies [are conducting] such inhuman and savage measures to take revenge on the Iraqi government and nation and destroy the process of democracy and the country’s national interests,” Iran Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said on Tuesday.

“They are trying to trigger sectarian division and provoke the people to enter Iraq into internal and tribal conflicts,” she added.

Afkham expressed Iran’s support for the Iraqi government and nation and called on different groups in the country to hold close consultation aimed at strengthening national unity and setting up an anti-terrorism front.

More than 470 Iraqis have lost their lives so far in February.

According to official figures, some 1,013 people were killed in January, making it the deadliest month in Iraq since April 2008.

SF/HGH/SS

PRESS TV RSS News

Iran warns of sectarian strife in Iraq

US to begin easing economic sanctions on Iran

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States will begin easing economic sanctions on Iran after it began shutting down its most sensitive nuclear work on Monday, the White House said.

Iran’s move was part of a landmark deal struck late last year with the U.S., five other world powers and the European Union to ease concerns over Tehran’s nuclear program and provide for the partial removal of some of the economic sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy. Iran has insisted that its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes only.

The United Nations nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, confirmed Monday that higher-level uranium enrichment at a facility in central Iran had stopped, an important step among others that together provided officials with the evidence needed to conclude that Iran was holding up its end of the agreement.

Ironically, Monday’s development came on the 33rd anniversary of Iran’s release of dozens of Americans held hostage, the same day that Ronald Reagan took the oath of office to be president of the United States.

The White House, which has vowed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, hailed Iran’s actions as “an important step forward.”

“These actions represent the first time in nearly a decade that Iran has verifiably enacted measures to halt progress on its nuclear program, and roll it back in key respects,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement. “Iran has also begun to provide the IAEA with increased transparency into the Iranian nuclear program, through more frequent and intrusive inspections and the expanded provision of information to the IAEA. Taken together, these concrete actions represent an important step forward.”

The European Union announced earlier Monday that it, too, was suspending some of the sanctions it has imposed on Iran.

Carney said the five world powers — the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China — also would begin providing relief to Iran.

At the same time, Carney said the group will continue its aggressive enforcement of sanctions that will remain in effect during the next six months, the period that Iran and the world powers will use to negotiate a final deal.

In a conference call with reporters, senior Obama administration officials noted the IAEA’s statement confirming that Iran was implementing initially agreed-upon requirements in what one official described as “a meaningful step forward.”

A second official said that Iran will not necessarily now largely “be open for business,” emphasizing that the U.S. would reach out to its counterparts to remind them of the continuing sanctions.

Regarding the desire of some in Congress to impose harsher sanctions, one of the officials said that Iran is starting to implement the steps and that “it would not be a wise time to take” take actions that “we don’t need.”

These officials insisted on anonymity to discuss a diplomatic matter they were not authorized to talk about by name.

___

Associated Press reporter Pete Yost in Washington contributed to this story.

Associated Press

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Politics Headlines

US to begin easing economic sanctions on Iran

VIDEO: Sherman outlines Iran nuclear deal

At a Senate Banking committee hearing Thursday, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman explained steps involved in the p-five-plus-one joint agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program.

Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.

To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.

VIDEO: Sherman outlines Iran nuclear deal

U.S. extends Iran oil sanctions waivers to China, India, Korea

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry waves before getting into his motorcade vehicle as he arrives at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, November 25, 2013, as he returns from London.

Credit: Reuters/Carolyn Kaster/Pool

Reuters: Politics

U.S. extends Iran oil sanctions waivers to China, India, Korea

Schumer "Disappointed" With Obama"s Iran Nuclear Deal

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Sunday he is “disappointed” with the nuclear deal reached Saturday between the U.S. and Iran

“I am disappointed by the terms of the agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations because it does not seem proportional,” he said in a written statement.

The agreement with Iran does not reduce the country’s nuclear capabilities enough, he added, making it more likely that the Senate will push for increased sanctions in December.

“Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions,” he said. “This disproportionality of this agreement makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December. I intend to discuss that possibility with my colleagues.”

Schumer said that reducing sanctions in Iran will not provide enough incentive for Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program.

“It was strong sanctions, not the goodness of the hearts of the Iranian leaders, that brought Iran to the table, and any reduction relieves the psychological pressure of future sanctions and gives them hope that they will be able to gain nuclear weapon capability while further sanctions are reduced,” he said. “A fairer agreement would have coupled a reduction in sanctions with a proportionate reduction in Iranian nuclear capability.”

All TPM News

Schumer "Disappointed" With Obama"s Iran Nuclear Deal

Iran deal could change the strategic calculus

The new deal on Iran’s nuclear program could bring one of the most sweeping changes in decades to Washington’s strategic calculus — if it holds.

The Pentagon has devoted tens of thousands of troops, billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and a huge amount of brainpower toward deterring the Iranian nuclear nightmare that this weekend’s announcement might ultimately forestall.

Continue Reading

From aircraft carrier strike groups to massive bunker-busting weapons to the bases of “Southwest Asia” – a polite fiction the Air Force uses to sidestep acknowledging its troops and warplanes in places such as Qatar and Kuwait – the American military effort to deter Iranian aggression is immense.

So if Iran gave up its ability to obtain nuclear weapons, there’s no telling what ripple effects could ultimately result for the U.S. military and security throughout the Middle East and the world.

In announcing the Geneva agreement late Saturday, President Barack Obama said he believed Washington and the world had the duty to explore those possibilities.

“I have a profound responsibility to try to resolve our differences peacefully, rather than rush toward conflict,” he said at the White House. “Today, we have a real opportunity to achieve a comprehensive, peaceful settlement, and I believe we must test it.”

Even the most optimistic Middle East analyst probably is not cockeyed enough to expect that Iran’s nuclear agreement also means it would withdraw the many tentacles it uses to work its will in places from Syria to Iraq to the tiny Gulf kingdom of Bahrain. But eliminating the nuclear threat from the geostrategic equation in the neighborhood would reduce the risks to the U.S. and its allies – especially Israel – by many orders of magnitude.

And there could be political and diplomatic ramifications much farther afield.

For example, a nuclear-free Iran might mean the U.S. and its European allies could scale back or abandon their plans to build an American-backed missile defense shield, designed to protect European capitals from an Iranian missile attack. American destroyers already patrol the Mediterranean Sea as part of the missile defense effort and U.S. and Romanian officials broke ground late last month on the “Aegis Ashore” missile defense complex at Romania’s Deveselu Air Base.

The European missile defense shield has been a major diplomatic problem for the U.S. and Russia, partly because Russian President Vladimir Putin fears it could threaten Russia’s strategic arsenal. If the Iranian nuclear threat went away and took with it the dispute over European missile defense, that would be one less problem between Washington and Moscow – although there certainly are many others.

Missile defense advocates in the United States such as Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), who have been pushing for a new East Coast site to defend against a potential Iranian attack, might find that case much tougher to make with the threat from Tehran gone.

There could be other such second and third-order effects. Just the same, no one in Washington is daydreaming yet about how to spend any Iranian peace dividend.

The president himself tried to manage expectations in his remarks Saturday night to praise the deal. “It won’t be easy and huge challenges remain ahead,” he said. And administration officials said they remain clear-eyed about Iran’s record of duplicity.

Conservatives were even more skeptical about the nuclear deal.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — a vocal sanctions hawk who wants to add new restrictions to the defense authorizatin bill the Senate left in limbo – said Saturday night he thought Iran was getting off easy since it’s keeping its enrichment centrifuges.

And Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), used a talking point that Republicans first leveled at the president when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) opted to use the so-called “nuclear option” to change its filibuster rules on Thursday: Obama and Democrats are only trying to change the storyline in Washington away from the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act.

Advocates for diplomacy urged the U.S., its allies and Iran not to be swayed by the voices in Israel and some other countries that might suspect a trick or urge the players to hold out for what they believe is a better deal.

“This is the beginning, not the end of the process,” said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council. “Many obstacles and potential spoilers remain. Hardliners in both countries will work harder than ever to sabotage this pivot towards a diplomatic path. Those whose only currency is confrontation will search for any opportunities they can find to undermine and sabotage this interim deal.”

And arms control advocates said that the prospects for an end to the Iranian nuclear threat and worth the effort that would go into a permanent agreement.

“A verifiable freeze of Iran’s nuclear program is an important step toward increasing American security and the security of our allies in the Middle East,” said Joel Rubin, director of policy and government affairs for the Ploughshares Fund. “Now is the time for patience. As diplomacy continues, we applaud the bipartisan members of Congress who stand ready to support America’s negotiators in their ongoing diplomatic efforts.”

POLITICO – TOP Stories

Iran deal could change the strategic calculus

U.S. has eyes "wide open" to risks on Iran deal: Kerry

By Caren Bohan and Will Dunham

WASHINGTON Sun Nov 24, 2013 11:19am EST

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrives at London’s Stansted Airport November 24, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Carolyn Kaster/Pool

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration insisted on strong safeguards in a nuclear deal with Iran and has no illusions about the risks that the Islamic state might not follow through on its obligations, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday.

Kerry sought to reassure skeptics in the Congress who worry that the six-month agreement gives Iran too much leeway and that it might end up using it as a stalling tactic.

Kerry told CNN that U.S. officials entered into the deal with their eyes “absolutely wide open.”

“We have no illusions. We don’t do this on the basis of somebody’s statements to you. We do it on the basis on actions that can be verified,” he said.

The deal reached by Iran and six world powers, including the United States, gives Iran some initial relief from sanctions in exchange for halting its most sensitive nuclear work, the high-grade enrichment of uranium.

The deal does not require Iran to stop all enrichment but does demand a halt to refinement above a purity of 5 percent. Refined uranium also provides the fissile core of an atomic bomb if refined to a high degree.

Influential U.S. Senator Bob Corker, speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” pledged to hold the Obama administration’s “feet to the fire” to ensure that Tehran is not given excessive leeway.

Corker, the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that the pact allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium must not “become the norm” for a longer-term agreement.

“I think you are going to see on Capitol Hill, again, a bipartisan effort to try to make sure that this is not a final agreement,” he said.

Senator Ben Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland, agreed: “We will not stand by (and) just let this be the final deal.” Cardin also appeared on Fox.

Speaking on the ABC program “This Week,” Republican Saxby Chambliss, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said Congress may allow the administration to see how the deal works over the next six months.

But he added that in the future, there could be “a strong movement in the United States Senate to move ahead to tighten sanctions” on Iran.

On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Kerry also sought to provide reassurances to Israel, which views the nuclear deal as misguided.

“Israel is threatened by what has been going on in Iran,” Kerry told CNN.

“But I believe that from this day – for the next six months – Israel is in fact safer than it was yesterday because we now have a mechanism by which we are going to expand the amount of time in which they (the Iranians) can break out (toward making a nuclear bomb). We are going to have insights to their program that we didn’t have before,” he added.

(Additional reporting by Aruna Viswanatha and Jackie Frank; Editing by Sandra Maler and Jackie Frank)

• Link this


• Share this


• Digg this


• Email


• Print


• Reprints

Reuters: Politics

U.S. has eyes "wide open" to risks on Iran deal: Kerry

Netanyahu: Bad Iran Deal Could Leave Military Action As Only Option

AP Photo / J. Scott Applewhite

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that the plan currently being formulated by world leaders to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons will not be effective.

“This is a bad deal,” Netanyahu said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

He said that global leaders should increase sanctions on Iran, not loosen them.

“I think, if you want a peaceful solution, as I do, then the right thing to do is ratchet up the sanctions,” he said. ”Iran is practically giving away nothing. It’s making a minor concession, which they can reverse in weeks, and you endanger the whole sanctions regime that took years to make.”

Netanyahu argued that an imperfect deal could backfire and force the U.S. and other to used the military option.

“If you do a bad deal, you may get to the point where your only option is a military option,” he said. “So a bad deal actually can lead you to exactly the place you don’t want to be.”

All TPM News

Netanyahu: Bad Iran Deal Could Leave Military Action As Only Option

Feinstein opposes new Iran sanctions

Feinstein said she will “strongly oppose” any new sanctions on the Islamic Republic. | AP Photo

Dianne Feinstein might be bucking President Barack Obama on health care, but she’s got the administration’s back on Iran.

The Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman said on Friday that she will “strongly oppose” any move to impose new sanctions on the Islamic Republic while Secretary of State John Kerry tries to negotiate a diplomatic solution with Iran. Kerry is pushing Iran to scale back its nuclear program in return for a temporary reprieve on sanctions but has yet to seal the deal.

Continue Reading

Senators in both parties, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), are itching to join the House and slap a new round sanctions on Iran during the consideration of the defense authorization bill as soon as next week. But Feinstein (D-Calif.) said now is not the time.

“Tacking new sanctions onto the defense authorization bill or any other legislation would not lead to a better deal. It would lead to no deal at all,” Feinstein said. “I am baffled by the insistence of some senators to undermine” negotiations among Western leaders and Iran.

The Obama administration has furiously lobbied Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) to hold off on a sanctions bill and allowing Iran amendments until after the next round of negotiations begin on Nov. 20.

POLITICO – Congress

Feinstein opposes new Iran sanctions

Kerry says he understands Israel"s "deep concerns" over Iran

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks at a reception at the Japanese Ambassador’s Residence in Washington November 12, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Yuri Gripas

Reuters: Politics

Kerry says he understands Israel"s "deep concerns" over Iran

Foreign minister: Iran open to negotiations

Seated at the table from left, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton attend a meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany during the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2013. (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)

Seated at the table from left, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton attend a meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany during the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2013. (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

WASHINGTON (AP) — Iran’s foreign minister says his country is willing to forgive the United States’ history with Iran but will not decades of distrust between the two nations.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (jah-VAHD’ zah-REEF’) says Tehran is open to negotiations with the United States over its nuclear program, but Washington must end its crippling sanctions. Zarif says Iran is not developing a military nuclear program and has no desire for one.

Zarif also says Iran is willing to open its nuclear facilities to international inspectors.

The foreign minister’s comments follow a sudden thaw in U.S.-Iranian relations after decades as adversaries. President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani spoke Friday by telephone, the first direct contact between the two countries’ leaders in three decades.

Zarif spoke Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

Associated Press

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Politics Headlines

Foreign minister: Iran open to negotiations

The McLaughlin Group: Iran, Obama & Rouhani, Ted Cruz, Common Core

Posted on September 28, 2013

The McLaughlin Group: Iran, Obama & Rouhani, Ted Cruz, Common Core

Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift, Mort Zuckerman and Guy Thomas.

Posted By Ian Schwartz Email Comments Share

RealClearPolitics Video Log

The McLaughlin Group: Iran, Obama & Rouhani, Ted Cruz, Common Core

The McLaughlin Group: Iran, Obama & Rouhani, Ted Cruz, Common Core

Posted on September 28, 2013

The McLaughlin Group: Iran, Obama & Rouhani, Ted Cruz, Common Core

Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift, Mort Zuckerman and Guy Thomas.

Posted By Ian Schwartz Email Comments Share

RealClearPolitics Video Log

The McLaughlin Group: Iran, Obama & Rouhani, Ted Cruz, Common Core

Kerry looks forward to "good meeting" between major powers, Iran

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during the Millennium Development Goals event on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly at the U.N. Headquarters in New York September 25, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Brendan McDermid

Reuters: Politics

Kerry looks forward to "good meeting" between major powers, Iran

"Special Report" Panel Debates Iran Policy: Is There Potential For A Deal?

The “Special Report” panel discusses the diplomatic situation between the leader of the “Axis of Evil” and the “Great Satan.”

RealClearPolitics Video Log

"Special Report" Panel Debates Iran Policy: Is There Potential For A Deal?

Both Opportunity and Peril Over Iran

WASHINGTON — For a weakened but still ambitious President Obama, the biggest foreign-policy opportunity and danger of his presidency rolls into New York next week with the arrival of Iranian leader Hassan Rouhani.

The Iranians have been signaling through various channels that they are ready to discuss a broad security framework — one that would include concessions to limit Iran’s nuclear program short of producing weapons, but would also recognize that the country has interests in Syria and other parts of the Middle East.

Such a comprehensive security framework appeals to prominent U.S. strategists. But it deeply worries regional players in Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who fear their interests will be sacrificed in the grand design of the U.S.-Iranian condominium. A key test will be whether Iran demonstrates that it is ready to play a constructive role in Syria if it’s included in U.S.-Russian sponsored talks in Geneva about a political transition.

Here’s the way the White House is assessing the diplomatic maneuvers that will begin with Rouhani’s address to the United Nations Tuesday:

– U.S. officials see Rouhani as a stronger leader than his fiery predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as a more moderate one. He was elected with a mandate from the Iranian people to pursue more moderate foreign policies and end the sanctions that are choking the Iranian economy. Though he was initially opposed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, Rouhani now appears to have his backing, as in Khamenei’s call last week for “heroic flexibility” in negotiations.

– Rouhani has signaled that he’s interested in a nuclear deal. He responded favorably to a private letter from Obama that urged bilateral U.S.-Iranian negotiations, characterizing the message as “positive and constructive” in an interview last Wednesday with NBC News. U.S. officials are waiting to see how far Rouhani will go: They want more flexibility on such issues as safeguards and inspections; a greater willingness to restrict Iran’s stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium and perhaps cap its new production at 5 percent. They also see hints of Iranian flexibility on closing the big underground facility at Fordow, outside Qom. In return, Iran clearly wants acceptance of its right to enrich uranium — something Israel opposes.

– The White House sees an opportunity in Rouhani’s designation of Foreign Minister Javad Zarif as the chief negotiator on the nuclear issue. Zarif, Iran’s former U.N. ambassador, will stay on in New York for an extra week after Rouhani’s visit. U.S. officials might start initial quiet contacts with Zarif during his trip. But officials caution that any nuclear deal must be ratified by the so-called “P5+1″ group, which includes Russia and China, because it would require international monitoring.

– The most urgent issue is Syria — and Iran’s possible role at a Geneva conference to negotiate a political transition from President Bashar al-Assad. U.S. officials were encouraged by Rouhani’s statement that Iran would accept whomever the Syrian people chose as president, but that’s identical to the formula Ahmadinejad offered last year. U.S. officials are waiting for evidence that Iran will back a real transition away from Assad, and that it will limit the future military role of Hezbollah in both Syria and Lebanon.

Obama concluded this month that he needed Russian help to resolve the Syria problem, and he may make a similar decision about Iran. But U.S. officials wonder whether Rouhani can make policy independent of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, which has been Tehran’s covert-action arm in Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain and elsewhere. A deal with Rouhani that isn’t fully backed by Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani would be a dangerous delusion.

The opportunity for a breakthrough with Iran after 34 years of isolation is tantalizing for Obama and his foreign-policy team. It’s the sort of big idea that conjures up visions of a new regional order that reconciles the rising revolutionary powers with the status-quo powers, much as the Congress of Vienna did for Europe in 1815. One huge benefit is that a new security framework might check the Sunni-Shiite sectarian war that is ripping apart Syria and Iraq and straining Lebanon and Bahrain.

But for a wounded Obama who lacks a solid, bipartisan foreign-policy consensus, these are giant steps. Israel appears willing to allow more time for diplomacy. But will Saudi Arabia and the Gulf nations stop fulminating about the Iranian menace long enough to consider the shape of a deal? For a battered White House, it’s a time to think big — but mind the vexing little details. 

RealClearPolitics – Articles

Both Opportunity and Peril Over Iran

Obama says Syria deal could offer lesson for Iran talks

1 of 2. U.S. President Barack Obama meets Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah, Kuwait’s emir, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, September 13, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Jason Reed

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON | Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:04am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama rejected Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claim that Syrian rebels were responsible for an August 21 chemical gas attack but, in an interview broadcast on Sunday, he welcomed Putin’s diplomatic role in the crisis.

Obama, in an interview on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopolous,” defended his handling of the Syria crisis and dismissed criticism of his zig-zag approach to the issue as an argument about style.

Obama also said he and new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani had exchanged letters about the situation in Syria and that the Iranians understand the U.S. concern about a potential nuclear-armed Iran “is a far larger issue” for the United States.

Obama and Putin have become unlikely allies on Syria after U.S. threats to launch a military strike against Syria over the chemical weapons attack prompted a diplomatic initiative that has led to a framework deal on Saturday aimed at gaining control of Syria’s poison gas stockpiles.

Obama said he welcomed Putin’s involvement as helpful and said any deal on Syria must include a verifiable way to ensure that it gives up all its chemical weapons capacity.

“I think there’s a way for Mr. Putin, despite me and him having a whole lot of differences, to play an important role in that,” Obama said. “And so I welcome him being involved. I welcome him saying, ‘I will take responsibility for pushing my client, the Assad regime, to deal with these chemical weapons.’”

But Obama dismissed Putin’s charge that it was the Syrian rebels who launched the chemical weapons attack, instead of forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as Washington believes.

“Well, nobody around the world takes seriously the idea that the rebels were the perpetrators of this,” Obama said.

Washington says the attacked killed more than 1,400 civilians.

Obama’s response to the crisis in Syria has received mixed reviews from the American people. A Reuters-Ipsos poll last week found only 35 percent of Americans were satisfied with how he was handling the situation.

He also has come under criticism from some lawmakers and many analysts for a bumpy approach to the crisis by first threatening a unilateral military strike, then suddenly asking Congress to authorize it, then asking Congress to postpone the vote to give diplomacy a chance.

In the ABC interview, Obama defended his approach, saying the steps he has taken had led to a situation where Syria has acknowledged it has chemical weapons and that its key ally, Russia, is pressuring Syria to give them up.

“I think that folks here in Washington like to grade on style,” Obama said. “And so had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and linear, they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy.”

Obama did not reveal details of his exchange of letters with Iran’s Rouhani but made clear that U.S. concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions are paramount.

Obama said he doubted Rouhani would “suddenly make it easy” to negotiate with and said the United States would keep up the pressure for Tehran to give up a nuclear program that Iran denies is aimed at building an atomic weapon.

“My view is that if you have both a credible threat of force, combined with a rigorous diplomatic effort, that, in fact you can strike a deal,” he said.

(Reporting by Steve Holland; Editing by Bill Trott)

• Link this


• Share this


• Digg this


• Email


• Reprints

Reuters: Politics

Obama says Syria deal could offer lesson for Iran talks

Congress, Obama at odds over new Iran sanctions

President Barack Obama addresses an Organizing for Action summit in Washington, Monday, July 22, 2013. The group was formed from Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign with the express goal of backing his policy priorities. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

President Barack Obama addresses an Organizing for Action summit in Washington, Monday, July 22, 2013. The group was formed from Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign with the express goal of backing his policy priorities. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress is considering a new series of hard-hitting Iran sanctions on everything from mining and construction to the Islamic republic’s already besieged oil industry, despite concern from the Obama administration that the measures could interfere with nuclear negotiations.

House and Senate bills are both advancing at a time President Barack Obama’s national security team is gauging whether Iranian President-elect Hasan Rouhani is serious about halting some elements of Tehran’s uranium enrichment activity. Those involved in the process said the administration wants to temper Congressional plans until Rouhani takes office in August and has an opportunity to demonstrate whether his government will offer concessions.

The legislation would blacklist Iran’s mining and construction sectors, effective next year, because they are seen as heavily linked to Iran’s hard-line Revolutionary Guard corps. It also would commit the U.S. to the goal of ending all Iranian oil sales worldwide by 2015, targeting the regime’s biggest revenue generator and prime source of money for its weapons and nuclear programs.

U.S. penalties that went into effect last year already have cut Iran’s petroleum exports in half, but that still leaves billions of dollars coming in every month from Turkey, China and several other Asian countries.

The House’s bill may pass before Congress’ August recess. The Senate version won’t get a vote until at least September, said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a leading advocate of tougher Iran sanctions. The Senate Banking Committee, which will put forward the package, is in ongoing consultations with the administration, according to one U.S. official who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the sanctions.

John McCain, R-Ariz., said the U.S. should immediately “plow ahead” with greater and tougher measures against Iran. “We’re running out of time,” he said.

The U.S. and many other countries believe Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Obama has said Iran has until sometime next year to prove to the world its nuclear program is peaceful. If diplomacy fails, the stage may be set for a military intervention by the U.S. or Israel, which sees an Iranian nuclear weapon as a threat to its very existence.

In a report last week, David Albright and Christina Walrond at the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security concluded that Iran will be able to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear explosive without being detected by mid-2014.

Iranians insist their program is solely for energy and research purposes.

The State Department wouldn’t comment specifically on new legislation while it said it was waiting for Rouhani to be sworn in. “We will see what he does once in office,” spokeswoman Marie Harf said.

A senior U.S. official said the administration’s concerns were about the timing and content of the legislation.

If Rouhani is serious about compromise, setting new sanctions in advance of talks risks undercutting him, the official said. Even if the new Iranian leader isn’t serious, the oil measures in particular are problematic, turning a potential U.S. diplomatic success into a failure.

If China or Japan, for example, decides to flout the U.S. demand to stop all importing from Iran, the administration would then have to weigh enforcing the law by blacklisting Chinese and Japanese banks and companies at the risk of widespread economic harm — including for Americans. The likelier result is that the U.S. does nothing, making the sanctions look hollow and eroding international solidarity on pressuring Iran.

Despite wide bilateral support in Congress for tougher sanctions, some Democrats and Republicans are embracing the administration’s cautious approach. In a letter last week to Obama, 18 GOP House members joined more than 100 of their Democratic colleagues in urging the president to “reinvigorate U.S. efforts to secure a negotiated nuclear agreement” and give Rouhani a chance.

Rouhani’s election clearly has bolstered hope of compromise. A former nuclear negotiator and relatively moderate cleric, Rouhani has suggested a more accommodating approach than his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has final say on nuclear issues.

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said last week his country would be ready to resume talks once Rouhani, who takes office the first weekend in August, puts together a negotiating team.

World powers want the meeting “as soon as possible,” Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, said last week. Ashton has served as the point of contact for the U.S., Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia since talks with Iran restarted last year. They’ve yet to make significant headway despite four rounds of discussions.

Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an adviser to Congress and the administration on Iran sanctions, said moving forward with new measures made sense. “Iran’s nuclear ploys continue to beat Western economic pressure,” he said. “The administration must go into the next round of negotiations with significant, re-enhanced leverage.”

The administration has other options too. It could toughen enforcement of existing restrictions on Iran related to energy, shipping, port management and other sectors the U.S. has blacklisted in recent months. Dubowitz estimated that stamping out gold flows to Iran that already are subject to U.S. penalties could eliminate $ 20 billion a year in Iranian government revenue alone.

The rough parameters of any larger nuclear deal with Iran are clear. It would have to include the West scaling back some of the sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy over the past few years. In return, the Iranians probably would be allowed to continue producing low-enriched uranium for fuel but would be required to halt production of any higher-enriched material that comes closer to warhead-grade, and send existing stockpiles of such material out of the country for safekeeping. Western powers also would surely demand tougher monitoring of Tehran’s nuclear activities.

Associated Press

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Politics Headlines

Congress, Obama at odds over new Iran sanctions