30 apr 2015
During visit to New York, Iranian Foreign Minister takes aim at PM's criticism on Iran deal, says it's 'laughable' he 'has become everyone's non-proliferation guru'.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Thursday took aim at criticism leveled by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the international community's framework deal with Iran, calling it "ironic but laughable".
"Netanyahu has become everyone's non-proliferation guru. He is sitting on 400 nuclear warheads," the foreign minister said.
Netanyahu has been a fierce critic of the attempt to reach a deal with Iran over its nuclear program and who went as far as addressing Congress over the issue, to Obama's displeasure. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
Speaking at an event in New York on Wednesday, Zarif said his country and world powers will meet Thursday to start bringing together the elements of a draft on a comprehensive nuclear deal, with meetings starting Monday in Europe to finalize all its elements.
The Iranian Foreign Minister said that even though Iran certainly wants to meet the June 30 deadline for an agreement, "no time deadline is sacrosanct."
He met with Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday.
Zarif says Iran expects UN sanctions to be lifted within a few days of a deal. And he expects President Barack Obama will have to stop implementing the US sanctions on his country. "How he does is his problem," Zarif said.
Zarif spoke on the sidelines as world powers meet at the UN to discuss progress on a landmark treaty toward nuclear disarmament.
How sanctions on Iran would be lifted if a deal is reached, and how they might be "snapped back" in place, has been a key question during Iran's months of negotiations with the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany.
Zarif suggested that the world should be concerned any violations of an agreement by the United States, not his country.
"This is not a game," he said. "We have a provision for snap-back if the US fails, so if the US wants to sell this as an achievement, be my guest."
He rejected the idea of Iran and the US re-establishing diplomatic ties if a nuclear agreement is reached, saying it was "to early and too premature." Iran's first priority is its own region, he said.
The Iran talks have also made the country's Arab neighbors nervous. When asked Wednesday whether Iran would object to Saudi Arabia asking for a similar nuclear program arrangement, Zarif said, "We would welcome it" as well as the same opportunity for any other country.
The foreign minister on Monday addressed the global nuclear conference on behalf of more than 100 mostly developing states and asserted that the biggest threat to international peace and security is the continued presence of nuclear weapons in the US and the four other permanent Security Council members, Britain, France, China and Russia.
The second-biggest threat, he said, "is that Israel has nuclear weapons."
On Wednesday, the US Senate rejected an effort to tie sanctions relief for Iran under an international nuclear agreement to a requirement that President Barack Obama certify that Tehran is not supporting acts of terrorism against Americans.
A handful of Republicans joined Senate Democrats to reject by a 54-45 vote a proposed amendment offered by Republican Senator John Barrasso that would have added the terrorism clause to a bill subjecting an international nuclear agreement to review by the US Congress.
The Senate has been engaged in intense debate over the legislation, a compromise version of the bill reached in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week in an effort to avoid a presidential veto.
A year-and-a-half before the 2016 election, presidential politics have also influenced the legislation.
Senators Bob Corker and Ben Cardin, the committee's Republican chairman and top Democrat, have been arguing against so-called poison pill amendments seeking to toughen the Iran Nuclear Review Act.
They insist those amendments would kill its chances of becoming law by alienating Democrats and provoking a veto. Obama considers tougher restrictions a threat to ongoing nuclear negotiations between Iran and six world powers.
Cardin had a heated exchange with Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican presidential hopeful, on Wednesday over one of the seven amendments Rubio has filed seeking to toughen the bill.
Rubio wants to amend the bill to prevent a nuclear deal from going forward unless Iran's leaders accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, a measure certain to provoke a veto threat.
Rubio's critics have accused him of pushing the measure to enhance his foreign policy credentials as he fights for the White House. Pro-Israel politics are particularly important to evangelical Christian voters, a key part of the Republican base.
But Rubio accused some of his fellow senators of refusing to consider the amendment because they did not want to take a difficult vote.
Cardin, a Jewish lawmaker known as a strong supporter of Israel, vehemently disagreed and blasted the amendment as a poison pill. "It would make it almost impossible for the president to negotiate an agreement with Iran," he said.
Earlier this week, the US Senate rejected an effort requiring any nuclear agreement with Iran to be considered an international treaty, which would have forced any deal to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate's 100 members. The Senate voted 57-39 to reject the measure, which Republican Senator Ron Johnson offered as an amendment to the Iran Nuclear Review Act, a bill requiring an Iran nuclear deal to be reviewed by Congress.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Thursday took aim at criticism leveled by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the international community's framework deal with Iran, calling it "ironic but laughable".
"Netanyahu has become everyone's non-proliferation guru. He is sitting on 400 nuclear warheads," the foreign minister said.
Netanyahu has been a fierce critic of the attempt to reach a deal with Iran over its nuclear program and who went as far as addressing Congress over the issue, to Obama's displeasure. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
Speaking at an event in New York on Wednesday, Zarif said his country and world powers will meet Thursday to start bringing together the elements of a draft on a comprehensive nuclear deal, with meetings starting Monday in Europe to finalize all its elements.
The Iranian Foreign Minister said that even though Iran certainly wants to meet the June 30 deadline for an agreement, "no time deadline is sacrosanct."
He met with Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday.
Zarif says Iran expects UN sanctions to be lifted within a few days of a deal. And he expects President Barack Obama will have to stop implementing the US sanctions on his country. "How he does is his problem," Zarif said.
Zarif spoke on the sidelines as world powers meet at the UN to discuss progress on a landmark treaty toward nuclear disarmament.
How sanctions on Iran would be lifted if a deal is reached, and how they might be "snapped back" in place, has been a key question during Iran's months of negotiations with the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany.
Zarif suggested that the world should be concerned any violations of an agreement by the United States, not his country.
"This is not a game," he said. "We have a provision for snap-back if the US fails, so if the US wants to sell this as an achievement, be my guest."
He rejected the idea of Iran and the US re-establishing diplomatic ties if a nuclear agreement is reached, saying it was "to early and too premature." Iran's first priority is its own region, he said.
The Iran talks have also made the country's Arab neighbors nervous. When asked Wednesday whether Iran would object to Saudi Arabia asking for a similar nuclear program arrangement, Zarif said, "We would welcome it" as well as the same opportunity for any other country.
The foreign minister on Monday addressed the global nuclear conference on behalf of more than 100 mostly developing states and asserted that the biggest threat to international peace and security is the continued presence of nuclear weapons in the US and the four other permanent Security Council members, Britain, France, China and Russia.
The second-biggest threat, he said, "is that Israel has nuclear weapons."
On Wednesday, the US Senate rejected an effort to tie sanctions relief for Iran under an international nuclear agreement to a requirement that President Barack Obama certify that Tehran is not supporting acts of terrorism against Americans.
A handful of Republicans joined Senate Democrats to reject by a 54-45 vote a proposed amendment offered by Republican Senator John Barrasso that would have added the terrorism clause to a bill subjecting an international nuclear agreement to review by the US Congress.
The Senate has been engaged in intense debate over the legislation, a compromise version of the bill reached in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week in an effort to avoid a presidential veto.
A year-and-a-half before the 2016 election, presidential politics have also influenced the legislation.
Senators Bob Corker and Ben Cardin, the committee's Republican chairman and top Democrat, have been arguing against so-called poison pill amendments seeking to toughen the Iran Nuclear Review Act.
They insist those amendments would kill its chances of becoming law by alienating Democrats and provoking a veto. Obama considers tougher restrictions a threat to ongoing nuclear negotiations between Iran and six world powers.
Cardin had a heated exchange with Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican presidential hopeful, on Wednesday over one of the seven amendments Rubio has filed seeking to toughen the bill.
Rubio wants to amend the bill to prevent a nuclear deal from going forward unless Iran's leaders accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, a measure certain to provoke a veto threat.
Rubio's critics have accused him of pushing the measure to enhance his foreign policy credentials as he fights for the White House. Pro-Israel politics are particularly important to evangelical Christian voters, a key part of the Republican base.
But Rubio accused some of his fellow senators of refusing to consider the amendment because they did not want to take a difficult vote.
Cardin, a Jewish lawmaker known as a strong supporter of Israel, vehemently disagreed and blasted the amendment as a poison pill. "It would make it almost impossible for the president to negotiate an agreement with Iran," he said.
Earlier this week, the US Senate rejected an effort requiring any nuclear agreement with Iran to be considered an international treaty, which would have forced any deal to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate's 100 members. The Senate voted 57-39 to reject the measure, which Republican Senator Ron Johnson offered as an amendment to the Iran Nuclear Review Act, a bill requiring an Iran nuclear deal to be reviewed by Congress.
20 apr 2015
Last year's Victory Day parade in Red Square
Israel's envoy to Moscow will represent Jerusalem at ceremony marking 70 years since victory over Germany, leading to Russian assessment that the decision not to send a higher-ranking dignitary is related to Putin's sale of S-300 missiles to Iran.
Israel will not send a representative to Russia for its ceremonies marking 70 years since the Red Army defeated Nazi Germany, which are set to take place in Moscow's Red Square on May 9. Furious responses in Moscow have suggested that the decision was a reaction to Russia's sale of S-300 missile defense systems to Iran.
Russia extended similar invitations to most of the world's countries. Many Western nations declined amid tensions over Moscow's military intervention in Ukraine.
But Russia expected Israel to send a high-level representative because of its high concentration of Russian veterans of World War II.
The Foreign Ministry held discussions on the question of Israeli representation at important Russian ceremonies. The possibility of sending President Reuven Rivlin was even raised at one point, but the idea was nixed because he is scheduled to visit Germany.
The option of sending Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was also taken off the table, partly in order to avoid angering the United States and Western countries, which decided to send low-level dignitaries.
The fact that the ceremonies in Moscow will take place on Saturday posed another problem.
The Foreign Ministry eventually decided to send Minister of Immigrant Absorption Sofa Landver. But this weekend it declared that Israel's ambassador to Moscow, Dorit Goldner, would be sent instead.
Russian media outlets reporting on this decision called it a slap in the face to Moscow. Members of Russia's parliament were also angered by the Israeli decision.
The Kremlin's assessment is that the change of heart is connected to anger in Jerusalem over Putin's decision to sell the S-300 to Iran, against Israel's express wishes. Israel has chosen to avoid official comment on the matter, but officials in Jerusalem who asked to remain anonymous confirmed that it was difficult not to see a direct link between the two decisions, even if there were additional reasons to settle for sending a more low-level representative. Israeli anger towards Moscow was evident in Netanyahu's at the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday. "Israel takes Russia's sale of S-300 missiles to Iran very seriously, and this is at a time when Iran is increasing its aggression in the region and all around Israel's border," he said.
"Israel also takes very seriously the fact that there is no mention of this aggression in the nuclear deal that is being developed between world powers and Iran. There is no stipulation that Iran must stop this aggression, whether as a prerequisite for the deal or as a condition for removal of sanctions."
Israel's envoy to Moscow will represent Jerusalem at ceremony marking 70 years since victory over Germany, leading to Russian assessment that the decision not to send a higher-ranking dignitary is related to Putin's sale of S-300 missiles to Iran.
Israel will not send a representative to Russia for its ceremonies marking 70 years since the Red Army defeated Nazi Germany, which are set to take place in Moscow's Red Square on May 9. Furious responses in Moscow have suggested that the decision was a reaction to Russia's sale of S-300 missile defense systems to Iran.
Russia extended similar invitations to most of the world's countries. Many Western nations declined amid tensions over Moscow's military intervention in Ukraine.
But Russia expected Israel to send a high-level representative because of its high concentration of Russian veterans of World War II.
The Foreign Ministry held discussions on the question of Israeli representation at important Russian ceremonies. The possibility of sending President Reuven Rivlin was even raised at one point, but the idea was nixed because he is scheduled to visit Germany.
The option of sending Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was also taken off the table, partly in order to avoid angering the United States and Western countries, which decided to send low-level dignitaries.
The fact that the ceremonies in Moscow will take place on Saturday posed another problem.
The Foreign Ministry eventually decided to send Minister of Immigrant Absorption Sofa Landver. But this weekend it declared that Israel's ambassador to Moscow, Dorit Goldner, would be sent instead.
Russian media outlets reporting on this decision called it a slap in the face to Moscow. Members of Russia's parliament were also angered by the Israeli decision.
The Kremlin's assessment is that the change of heart is connected to anger in Jerusalem over Putin's decision to sell the S-300 to Iran, against Israel's express wishes. Israel has chosen to avoid official comment on the matter, but officials in Jerusalem who asked to remain anonymous confirmed that it was difficult not to see a direct link between the two decisions, even if there were additional reasons to settle for sending a more low-level representative. Israeli anger towards Moscow was evident in Netanyahu's at the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday. "Israel takes Russia's sale of S-300 missiles to Iran very seriously, and this is at a time when Iran is increasing its aggression in the region and all around Israel's border," he said.
"Israel also takes very seriously the fact that there is no mention of this aggression in the nuclear deal that is being developed between world powers and Iran. There is no stipulation that Iran must stop this aggression, whether as a prerequisite for the deal or as a condition for removal of sanctions."
14 apr 2015
An Israeli who joined a public campaign in 2012 to discourage an Israeli war against Iran
By Ray McGovern
The front page of the neocon flagship Washington Post on Tuesday warned that the Russians have decided, despite U.S. objections, "to send an advanced air-defense system to Iran ... potentially altering the strategic balance in the Middle East."
So, at least, says the lede of an article entitled "Putin lifts 5-year hold on missile sale to Iran" by Karoun Demirjian, whose editors apparently took it upon themselves to sex up the first paragraph, which was not at all supported by the rest of her story which was factual and fair -- balanced, even.
Not only did Demirjian include much of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's explanation of Moscow's decision to end its self-imposed restriction on the delivery of S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran, but she mentioned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's umpteenth warning on Monday about "the prospect of airstrikes to destroy or hinder Tehran's nuclear program."
Lavrov noted that United Nations resolutions "did not impose any restrictions on providing air defense weapons to Iran" and described the "separate Russian free-will embargo" as "irrelevant" in the light of the "meaningful progress" achieved by the negotiated framework deal of April 2 in which Iran accepted unprecedented constraints on its nuclear program to show that it was intended for peaceful purposes only.
The Russian Foreign Minister emphasized that the S-300 is a "completely defensive weapon [that] will not endanger the security of any state in the region, certainly including Israel." Pointing to "the extremely tense situation in the region around Iran, he said modern air-defense systems are vitally important for that country." Lavrov added that by freezing the S-300 contract for five years, Russia also had lost a lot of money. (The deal is said to be worth $800 million.)
Predictably, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Fox News that the air-defense system would be a "game-changer" for Israel regarding air strikes. According to Bolton, once the system is in place, only stealth bombers would be able to penetrate Iranian space, and only the U.S. has those and was not likely to use them.
The U.S. media also highlighted comments by popular go-to retired Air Force three-star General David A. Deptula, who served as Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance until he retired in 2010 to make some real money. Deptula called delivering the S-300 system to Iran "significant, as it complicates the calculus for planning any military action involving air strikes."
It strikes me as a bit strange that the media likes to feature retired generals like Deptula, whose reputations for integrity are not the best. Deptula has been temporarily barred from doing business with the government after what Air Force Deputy General Counsel Randy Grandon described as "particularly egregious" breaches of post-employment rules. He remains, however, a media favorite.
Adding to his woes, Deptula was also caught with 125 classified documents on his personal laptop -- including 10 labeled "Secret," 14 labeled "Top Secret" and one with the high protection of "Secret, Compartmented Information." Deptula pleaded ignorance and was let off -- further proof that different standards apply to generals like Deptula and David Petraeus.
A More Subdued Tone
The S-300 announcement hit as Secretary of State John Kerry was testifying on Capitol Hill about the framework deal on Iran's nuclear program. Speaking later to Fox News, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Illinois, professed shock that Kerry did not seem more upset. According to Kinzinger, Kerry actually said, "You have to understand Iran's perspective."
And in keeping with Kerry's tone of sang-froid, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, referring to the S-300 deal, said, "We see this as separate from the negotiations [regarding Iran's nuclear program], and we don't think this will have an impact on our unity."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest took the S-300 announcement with his customary, studied earnestness. Referring not only to the decision to deliver the S-300s but also to reports of a $20 billion barter deal that would involve Russia buying 500,000 barrels of oil a day in return for Russian grain, equipment and construction materials, Earnest referred to "potential sanctions concerns" and said the U.S. would "evaluate these two proposals moving forward," adding that the U.S. has been in direct touch with Russia to make sure the Russians understand -- and they do -- the potential concerns that we have."
With respect to the various sanctions against Iran, I believe this nonchalant tone can be seen largely as whistling in the dark. With the S-300 and the barter deals, Russia is putting a huge dent in the sanctions regimes. From now on, money is likely to call the shots, as competitors vie for various slices of the Iranian -- and the Russian -- pie. Whether or not there is a final agreement by the end of June on the Iranian nuclear issue, Washington is not likely to be able to hold the line on sanctions and will become even more isolated if it persists in trying.
Worse still for the neocons and others who favor using sanctions to punish Russia over Ukraine, the lifting of sanctions against Iran may have a cascading effect. If, for example, the Ukrainian ceasefire holds more or less over the next months, it is possible that the $1.5 billion sale of two French-built Mistral-Class helicopter carrier ships to Russia, concluded four years ago, will go through.
The contract does not expire for two months and Russia's state arms exporter is trying to work out a compromise before taking France to court. Russian officials are expressing hope that a compromise can be reached within the time left.
By Ray McGovern
The front page of the neocon flagship Washington Post on Tuesday warned that the Russians have decided, despite U.S. objections, "to send an advanced air-defense system to Iran ... potentially altering the strategic balance in the Middle East."
So, at least, says the lede of an article entitled "Putin lifts 5-year hold on missile sale to Iran" by Karoun Demirjian, whose editors apparently took it upon themselves to sex up the first paragraph, which was not at all supported by the rest of her story which was factual and fair -- balanced, even.
Not only did Demirjian include much of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's explanation of Moscow's decision to end its self-imposed restriction on the delivery of S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran, but she mentioned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's umpteenth warning on Monday about "the prospect of airstrikes to destroy or hinder Tehran's nuclear program."
Lavrov noted that United Nations resolutions "did not impose any restrictions on providing air defense weapons to Iran" and described the "separate Russian free-will embargo" as "irrelevant" in the light of the "meaningful progress" achieved by the negotiated framework deal of April 2 in which Iran accepted unprecedented constraints on its nuclear program to show that it was intended for peaceful purposes only.
The Russian Foreign Minister emphasized that the S-300 is a "completely defensive weapon [that] will not endanger the security of any state in the region, certainly including Israel." Pointing to "the extremely tense situation in the region around Iran, he said modern air-defense systems are vitally important for that country." Lavrov added that by freezing the S-300 contract for five years, Russia also had lost a lot of money. (The deal is said to be worth $800 million.)
Predictably, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Fox News that the air-defense system would be a "game-changer" for Israel regarding air strikes. According to Bolton, once the system is in place, only stealth bombers would be able to penetrate Iranian space, and only the U.S. has those and was not likely to use them.
The U.S. media also highlighted comments by popular go-to retired Air Force three-star General David A. Deptula, who served as Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance until he retired in 2010 to make some real money. Deptula called delivering the S-300 system to Iran "significant, as it complicates the calculus for planning any military action involving air strikes."
It strikes me as a bit strange that the media likes to feature retired generals like Deptula, whose reputations for integrity are not the best. Deptula has been temporarily barred from doing business with the government after what Air Force Deputy General Counsel Randy Grandon described as "particularly egregious" breaches of post-employment rules. He remains, however, a media favorite.
Adding to his woes, Deptula was also caught with 125 classified documents on his personal laptop -- including 10 labeled "Secret," 14 labeled "Top Secret" and one with the high protection of "Secret, Compartmented Information." Deptula pleaded ignorance and was let off -- further proof that different standards apply to generals like Deptula and David Petraeus.
A More Subdued Tone
The S-300 announcement hit as Secretary of State John Kerry was testifying on Capitol Hill about the framework deal on Iran's nuclear program. Speaking later to Fox News, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Illinois, professed shock that Kerry did not seem more upset. According to Kinzinger, Kerry actually said, "You have to understand Iran's perspective."
And in keeping with Kerry's tone of sang-froid, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, referring to the S-300 deal, said, "We see this as separate from the negotiations [regarding Iran's nuclear program], and we don't think this will have an impact on our unity."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest took the S-300 announcement with his customary, studied earnestness. Referring not only to the decision to deliver the S-300s but also to reports of a $20 billion barter deal that would involve Russia buying 500,000 barrels of oil a day in return for Russian grain, equipment and construction materials, Earnest referred to "potential sanctions concerns" and said the U.S. would "evaluate these two proposals moving forward," adding that the U.S. has been in direct touch with Russia to make sure the Russians understand -- and they do -- the potential concerns that we have."
With respect to the various sanctions against Iran, I believe this nonchalant tone can be seen largely as whistling in the dark. With the S-300 and the barter deals, Russia is putting a huge dent in the sanctions regimes. From now on, money is likely to call the shots, as competitors vie for various slices of the Iranian -- and the Russian -- pie. Whether or not there is a final agreement by the end of June on the Iranian nuclear issue, Washington is not likely to be able to hold the line on sanctions and will become even more isolated if it persists in trying.
Worse still for the neocons and others who favor using sanctions to punish Russia over Ukraine, the lifting of sanctions against Iran may have a cascading effect. If, for example, the Ukrainian ceasefire holds more or less over the next months, it is possible that the $1.5 billion sale of two French-built Mistral-Class helicopter carrier ships to Russia, concluded four years ago, will go through.
The contract does not expire for two months and Russia's state arms exporter is trying to work out a compromise before taking France to court. Russian officials are expressing hope that a compromise can be reached within the time left.
Demonstrators from the anti-war group Code Pink protest at congressional vote
President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he could accept a revised bipartisan bill on Iran’s nuclear agreement after leaders of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee reached agreement on revisions that would allow Congress to vote on it. The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 19-0 on Tuesday to approve an amended version of the bill.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama, who earlier had said he would veto the proposed bill because he feared it would scuttle the emerging Iran deal, could accept compromises that have emerged and have drawn bipartisan Senate support.
“What we have made clear to Democrats and Republicans in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is that the president would be willing to sign the proposed compromise that is working its way through the committee,” Earnest said.
Committee Chairman Bob Corker and the panel’s top Democrat, Senator Ben Cardin, said they had worked out revisions that would shorten the time in which Congress can review any final nuclear agreement and soften a requirement that Obama certify that Iran is not supporting acts of terrorism against the United States.
These changes addressed objections raised by Obama, who has invested enormous political capital throughout his presidency in securing an international agreement to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon.
Earnest told reporters Obama had also insisted that there should be bipartisan agreement that this would be the only legislation governing Congress’s oversight of the Iran deal.
Obama had warned that engagement by Congress before a deal was struck would undermine Iran’s faith in Washington’s commitment to uphold a deal, which is being negotiated by six major powers and Tehran.
The Committee of 10 Republicans and nine Democrats is scheduled to debate and vote on the measure later on Tuesday. If it is approved, the legislation would be sent for a vote in the full 100-member Senate.
Corker said he was pleased with the bipartisan work on the “manager’s package” of amendments.
“It’s my hope it will pass overwhelmingly; we’ll see. Hopefully it will pass and will move to the floor and will be able to generate a veto-proof majority,” he told reporters after a classified briefing for the full Senate by Secretary of State John Kerry on the interim Iran nuclear deal reached on April 2.
“We’ve reached an agreement and I’m confident that it will carry out the … major purposes of the bill,” Cardin said.
A framework deal with Tehran reached by Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States early this month is part of an effort to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. A final comprehensive agreement is due by June 30.
Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and not to develop weapons capability, as the West fears. ‘
President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he could accept a revised bipartisan bill on Iran’s nuclear agreement after leaders of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee reached agreement on revisions that would allow Congress to vote on it. The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 19-0 on Tuesday to approve an amended version of the bill.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama, who earlier had said he would veto the proposed bill because he feared it would scuttle the emerging Iran deal, could accept compromises that have emerged and have drawn bipartisan Senate support.
“What we have made clear to Democrats and Republicans in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is that the president would be willing to sign the proposed compromise that is working its way through the committee,” Earnest said.
Committee Chairman Bob Corker and the panel’s top Democrat, Senator Ben Cardin, said they had worked out revisions that would shorten the time in which Congress can review any final nuclear agreement and soften a requirement that Obama certify that Iran is not supporting acts of terrorism against the United States.
These changes addressed objections raised by Obama, who has invested enormous political capital throughout his presidency in securing an international agreement to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon.
Earnest told reporters Obama had also insisted that there should be bipartisan agreement that this would be the only legislation governing Congress’s oversight of the Iran deal.
Obama had warned that engagement by Congress before a deal was struck would undermine Iran’s faith in Washington’s commitment to uphold a deal, which is being negotiated by six major powers and Tehran.
The Committee of 10 Republicans and nine Democrats is scheduled to debate and vote on the measure later on Tuesday. If it is approved, the legislation would be sent for a vote in the full 100-member Senate.
Corker said he was pleased with the bipartisan work on the “manager’s package” of amendments.
“It’s my hope it will pass overwhelmingly; we’ll see. Hopefully it will pass and will move to the floor and will be able to generate a veto-proof majority,” he told reporters after a classified briefing for the full Senate by Secretary of State John Kerry on the interim Iran nuclear deal reached on April 2.
“We’ve reached an agreement and I’m confident that it will carry out the … major purposes of the bill,” Cardin said.
A framework deal with Tehran reached by Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States early this month is part of an effort to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. A final comprehensive agreement is due by June 30.
Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and not to develop weapons capability, as the West fears. ‘
5 apr 2015
69 Squadron F-15I Ra'ams at Red Flag 04-3
Israel should "seriously consider" a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities in the aftermath of the framework agreement reached between Tehran and western powers Thursday, said Professor Efraim Inbar, who heads the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
Inbar added the deal had realized Israel's worst fears by leaving Iran's nuclear program essentially intact.
Inbar, who is the director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at the Bar Ilan University, made his declarations talking with Arutz Sheva, a news portal representing a settlers perspective.
The Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA), is an think tank based at the Bar Ilan University, that seeks to advance a conservative Zionist security agenda. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu uses BESA facilities as a stage to declare strategic policy changes.
In 2009, the prime minister announced at a conference in BESA the conditional recognition of Palestinians right to statehood. Later he use BESA as a stage to declare his concerns regarding Iran.
"I hold the view that the only way to stop Iran in its journey to a nuclear bomb is through military means," Inbar said in the interview with Arutz Sheva. He added that "Israel needs to seriously consider striking a number of important nuclear facilities" to head off the threat.
According to Arutz Sheva Inbar is not alone advocating an Israeli offensive on Iran. Also Maj. Gen. Nimrod Sheffer, who heads the Israel Army Planning Directorate, claims that when Israeli leaders say “all options are on the table” with regard to Iran, they mean it.
Sheffer who spoke with Arutz Sheva during the weekend added that when “Israel feels its existence depends on action, it will take it.” He believes, that despite the tensions the U.S. will Israel's accept Israel's considerations.
“As long as Israel instructs its army to do what it has to do because that is the right thing to do for Israel's security, I think it will be accepted. That is why I am certain that any decision on this issue will not be the thing that destroys the relationship between the U.S. and Israel," Sheffer said.
Prime Minister Netanyahu said on Friday that the deal with Iran “paves Iran's path to the bomb.”
"Israel will not accept an agreement which allows a country that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons, period," the prime minister added.
Israel should "seriously consider" a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities in the aftermath of the framework agreement reached between Tehran and western powers Thursday, said Professor Efraim Inbar, who heads the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
Inbar added the deal had realized Israel's worst fears by leaving Iran's nuclear program essentially intact.
Inbar, who is the director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at the Bar Ilan University, made his declarations talking with Arutz Sheva, a news portal representing a settlers perspective.
The Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA), is an think tank based at the Bar Ilan University, that seeks to advance a conservative Zionist security agenda. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu uses BESA facilities as a stage to declare strategic policy changes.
In 2009, the prime minister announced at a conference in BESA the conditional recognition of Palestinians right to statehood. Later he use BESA as a stage to declare his concerns regarding Iran.
"I hold the view that the only way to stop Iran in its journey to a nuclear bomb is through military means," Inbar said in the interview with Arutz Sheva. He added that "Israel needs to seriously consider striking a number of important nuclear facilities" to head off the threat.
According to Arutz Sheva Inbar is not alone advocating an Israeli offensive on Iran. Also Maj. Gen. Nimrod Sheffer, who heads the Israel Army Planning Directorate, claims that when Israeli leaders say “all options are on the table” with regard to Iran, they mean it.
Sheffer who spoke with Arutz Sheva during the weekend added that when “Israel feels its existence depends on action, it will take it.” He believes, that despite the tensions the U.S. will Israel's accept Israel's considerations.
“As long as Israel instructs its army to do what it has to do because that is the right thing to do for Israel's security, I think it will be accepted. That is why I am certain that any decision on this issue will not be the thing that destroys the relationship between the U.S. and Israel," Sheffer said.
Prime Minister Netanyahu said on Friday that the deal with Iran “paves Iran's path to the bomb.”
"Israel will not accept an agreement which allows a country that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons, period," the prime minister added.
3 apr 2015
In phone call, Netanyahu tells Obama that nuclear deal based on proposed framework 'would threaten the survival of Israel, bolster Iran's nuclear program and pave its way path to the bomb.'
Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to US President Obama early Friday and voiced Israel's strong opposition to the framework agreement reached between Iran and world powers, which Netanyahu said poses a grave danger to Israel, the region and the world.
"A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel," Netanyahu said, slamming Iran for its regional activities.
"This deal would legitimize Iran's nuclear program, bolsters Iran's economy, and increase Iran's aggression.
"Such a deal would not block Iran's path to the bomb. It would pave it… (and) increase the risks of nuclear proliferation in the region and the risks of a horrific war," Netanyahu said in a statement regarding his phone call with Obama.
"The alternative is standing firm and increasing the pressure on Iran until a better deal is achieved," he said.
Netanyahu believes Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb - a concern that has been shared by much of the world. He considers a nuclear-armed Iran a threat to Israel's very existence, given Iranian leaders' calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, Iran's support for hostile militant groups across the region and its development of long-range ballistic missiles. Speaking at the White House, President Barack Obama called it a "good deal" that would address concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called it a "win-win outcome."
The framework deal includes a system of limits and inspections on Iranian nuclear facilities, but falls short of Israeli demands to dismantle the program. Netanyahu believes Iran cannot be trusted, and that leaving certain facilities intact would allow the Iranians to reach the capability of building a bomb. Netanyahu has warned of Iran's nuclear intentions for years, and has said that preventing Iran from developing a bomb is the mission of his lifetime. As details of the framework were being finalised, Netanyahu demanded in a post on Twitter that any deal achieved with Iran "must significantly roll back Iran's nuclear capabilities."
Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to US President Obama early Friday and voiced Israel's strong opposition to the framework agreement reached between Iran and world powers, which Netanyahu said poses a grave danger to Israel, the region and the world.
"A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel," Netanyahu said, slamming Iran for its regional activities.
"This deal would legitimize Iran's nuclear program, bolsters Iran's economy, and increase Iran's aggression.
"Such a deal would not block Iran's path to the bomb. It would pave it… (and) increase the risks of nuclear proliferation in the region and the risks of a horrific war," Netanyahu said in a statement regarding his phone call with Obama.
"The alternative is standing firm and increasing the pressure on Iran until a better deal is achieved," he said.
Netanyahu believes Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb - a concern that has been shared by much of the world. He considers a nuclear-armed Iran a threat to Israel's very existence, given Iranian leaders' calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, Iran's support for hostile militant groups across the region and its development of long-range ballistic missiles. Speaking at the White House, President Barack Obama called it a "good deal" that would address concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called it a "win-win outcome."
The framework deal includes a system of limits and inspections on Iranian nuclear facilities, but falls short of Israeli demands to dismantle the program. Netanyahu believes Iran cannot be trusted, and that leaving certain facilities intact would allow the Iranians to reach the capability of building a bomb. Netanyahu has warned of Iran's nuclear intentions for years, and has said that preventing Iran from developing a bomb is the mission of his lifetime. As details of the framework were being finalised, Netanyahu demanded in a post on Twitter that any deal achieved with Iran "must significantly roll back Iran's nuclear capabilities."
Netanyahu attached a diagram to his tweet showing Tehran's involvement in Middle East conflicts in Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt and reiterated Israel's demands that Iran "stop its terrorism and aggression."
In Washington, Obama, who has had a rocky relationship with Netanyahu over Iran and other matters, tried to soothe Israeli concerns. At a news conference, he called the deal "the best option" for preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. In his phone call with Netanyahu, Obama said the framework would bring a deal "that cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb," according to the White House.
It said the deal "in no way diminishes" US concerns about "Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and threats toward Israel" or America's commitment to Israel's security.
Earlier, Obama said had spoken with the Saudi king, and announced that he was inviting the leaders of six Gulf nations, including Saudi Arabia, to Washington this spring. Netanyahu has said moderate Arab states see "eye to eye" with him on Iran. While Netanyahu has threatened in the past to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, that option seems to be a long shot at this stage. His best bet for foiling the deal could lie with the Congress, where Israel enjoys bipartisan support. Lawmakers have been threatening to try to delay the agreement or even push for new sanctions against Iran.
Yuval Steinitz, an Israeli Cabinet minister who monitors the Iranian nuclear program, said Israel would continue to push to cancel or at least improve the deal as it is finalized ahead of a June 30 deadline.
Capping exhausting and contentious talks, Iran and world powers sealed a breakthrough agreement Thursday outlining limits on Iran's nuclear program to keep it from being able to produce atomic weapons. The Islamic Republic was promised an end to years of crippling economic sanctions, but only if negotiators transform the plan into a comprehensive pact. They will try to do that in the next three months.
Yoel Guzansky, a former Iran analyst in the Israeli prime minister's office and a research fellow at the INSS think tank in Tel Aviv, said Thursday's announcement was a game changer. The deal starts a process "where Iran will stop being a pariah state," he said. "Israel will need to see how to inspect Iran on its own, and not rely on the international community." In recent weeks, Netanyahu has stepped up his rhetoric. Last month, Netanyahu harshly criticized the emerging agreement in a speech to the US Congress, enraging the White House because the visit was arranged behind its back with Republican lawmakers. But the speech, and furious Israeli lobbying to other participants in the Iran talks, appeared to have made little difference.
Britain, Germany, France and Italy - all key European allies and all directly or indirectly involved in the negotiations in Switzerland - welcomed the deal. "We are closer than ever to an agreement that makes it impossible for Iran to possess nuclear weapons," German Chancellor Angela Merkel said. "That is a great credit to all negotiating partners." French President Francois Hollande saluted the work of the foreign ministers, but cautioned that sanctions remained on the horizon if the final agreement set for June 30 were not respected.
Russia, another participant in the talks, said the deal could have a "positive influence" on the region. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the framework "paves the way" for a historic agreement that could "contribute to peace and stability in the region."
In Washington, Obama, who has had a rocky relationship with Netanyahu over Iran and other matters, tried to soothe Israeli concerns. At a news conference, he called the deal "the best option" for preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. In his phone call with Netanyahu, Obama said the framework would bring a deal "that cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb," according to the White House.
It said the deal "in no way diminishes" US concerns about "Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and threats toward Israel" or America's commitment to Israel's security.
Earlier, Obama said had spoken with the Saudi king, and announced that he was inviting the leaders of six Gulf nations, including Saudi Arabia, to Washington this spring. Netanyahu has said moderate Arab states see "eye to eye" with him on Iran. While Netanyahu has threatened in the past to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, that option seems to be a long shot at this stage. His best bet for foiling the deal could lie with the Congress, where Israel enjoys bipartisan support. Lawmakers have been threatening to try to delay the agreement or even push for new sanctions against Iran.
Yuval Steinitz, an Israeli Cabinet minister who monitors the Iranian nuclear program, said Israel would continue to push to cancel or at least improve the deal as it is finalized ahead of a June 30 deadline.
Capping exhausting and contentious talks, Iran and world powers sealed a breakthrough agreement Thursday outlining limits on Iran's nuclear program to keep it from being able to produce atomic weapons. The Islamic Republic was promised an end to years of crippling economic sanctions, but only if negotiators transform the plan into a comprehensive pact. They will try to do that in the next three months.
Yoel Guzansky, a former Iran analyst in the Israeli prime minister's office and a research fellow at the INSS think tank in Tel Aviv, said Thursday's announcement was a game changer. The deal starts a process "where Iran will stop being a pariah state," he said. "Israel will need to see how to inspect Iran on its own, and not rely on the international community." In recent weeks, Netanyahu has stepped up his rhetoric. Last month, Netanyahu harshly criticized the emerging agreement in a speech to the US Congress, enraging the White House because the visit was arranged behind its back with Republican lawmakers. But the speech, and furious Israeli lobbying to other participants in the Iran talks, appeared to have made little difference.
Britain, Germany, France and Italy - all key European allies and all directly or indirectly involved in the negotiations in Switzerland - welcomed the deal. "We are closer than ever to an agreement that makes it impossible for Iran to possess nuclear weapons," German Chancellor Angela Merkel said. "That is a great credit to all negotiating partners." French President Francois Hollande saluted the work of the foreign ministers, but cautioned that sanctions remained on the horizon if the final agreement set for June 30 were not respected.
Russia, another participant in the talks, said the deal could have a "positive influence" on the region. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the framework "paves the way" for a historic agreement that could "contribute to peace and stability in the region."