news

NUCLEAR DEAL

Followers

Showing posts with label NUCLEAR DEAL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NUCLEAR DEAL. Show all posts

United States warns Israel its attacks on Iran nuclear program are counterproductive — NYT

United States warns Israel its attacks on Iran nuclear program are counterproductive — NYT


It is no long a new apotheosis that threatening Iran by America and allies, economy sanctions or "economy Terrorism" as Tehran called it has always been counterproductive and by continuing doing so America is only putting all it's Allies in the region at risk, although Washington has repeatedly claims all options are on the table.

In contrast, the he officials of the United States have warned Israel that its attacks against the Iranian nuclear program are counterproductive and have enabled Tehran to rebuild an even more efficient enrichment system, according to the New York Times report Sunday.

NYT, citing officials familiar with the behind-the-scenes discussion between Washington and Jerusalem, as the Biden Administration continues to try and bring Iran back into the nuclear deal, the report said that Israeli officials have dismissed the warnings, saying they have “no intention of letting up.”

While in the last 20 months there have been four explosions at Iranian nuclear facilities attributed to Israel, along with the killing of Iran’s top nuclear scientist, the report said Washington officials have cautioned their Israeli counterparts that while such efforts may be “tactically satisfying,” they are “ultimately counterproductive.” And that Iran has managed to resume enrichment within months, often installing newer machines that can enrich uranium far faster.

However, the officials said Israel appeared unmoved by the arguments, and this was one of the many areas on which the US and Israel disagree regarding efforts to thwart Tehran’s drive to build nuclear weapons.

Further complicating matters was the fact that Iran has apparently managed to improve its defenses, particularly in the cyber field, the report said. As a consequence, cyber attacks like the Stuxnet attack that crippled centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear enrichment site for more than a year, an attack widely reported to be a joint US-Israeli effort, have become “much harder now to pull off.”

The major concern now was how close Iran has come to being able to build a nuclear weapon since then-US president Donald Trump withdrew the US from the deal in 2018.

This week, with Iran set for talks with world powers in Vienna on November 29, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tehran had again increased its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

Iran’s stockpile, as of November 6, was many times in excess of the limit laid down in the agreement with world powers, said the IAEA report. Such highly enriched uranium can be easily refined to make atomic weapons, which is why world powers have sought to contain Tehran’s nuclear program.

The Vienna-based agency told members that it is still not able to verify Iran’s exact stockpile of enriched uranium due to the limitations Tehran imposed on UN inspectors earlier this year.

The IAEA has been unable to access surveillance footage of Iranian nuclear sites or of online enrichment monitors and electronic seals since February. The agency’s chief, Rafael Mariano Grossi, told The Associated Press this month that the situation was like “flying in a heavily clouded sky.”

Sunday’s NYT report said that since abandoning the agreement, Iran had managed to reduce its breakout time to a bomb from about a year to just a few weeks.

“Before Mr. Trump decided to scrap the deal, Iran had adhered to the limits of the 2015 agreement — which by most estimates kept it about a year from ‘breakout,’ the point where it has enough material for a bomb. While estimates vary, that buffer is now down to somewhere between three weeks and a few months, which would change the geopolitical calculation throughout the Middle East,” the report said.

US officials have publicly warned that Iran’s violations are making it increasingly unlikely that there can be a return to the 2015 deal as it was.


The US envoy for Iran Robert Malley warned Friday that Tehran was approaching the point of no return for reviving a nuclear deal after it boosted its stocks of enriched uranium before the talks resume this month.

“The time will come if Iran continues at this pace with the advancements they’ve made, [it] will make it impossible even if we were going to go back to the JCPOA to recapture the benefits,” Malley told the Manama Dialogue conference in Bahrain, referring to the deal by its official name, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

“Iran’s advances are spreading alarm across the region… that’s what’s making the clock tick faster and making all of us say that the time is short for a return to the JCPOA,” Malley said.

And I want to be clear, because there’s no ambiguity about what they seem to be doing now, which is to drag their feet on the nuclear talks and accelerate the progress in their nuclear program,” he added.

The US envoy said he was not encouraged by the statements from the new Iranian government of President Ebrahim Raisi, which earlier on Friday accused Washington of conducting a “propaganda campaign” against the country.

With the possibility of a return to the 2015 deal fading, the US was examining the possibility of hammering out an interim deal with Iran, the New York Times report said, confirming a separate report last week. “Inside the White House, there has been a scramble in recent days to explore whether some kind of interim deal might be possible to freeze Iran’s production of more enriched uranium and its conversion of that fuel to metallic form — a necessary step in fabricating a warhead,” the Times said. “In return, the United States might ease a limited number of sanctions. That would not solve the problem. But it might buy time for negotiations, while holding off Israeli threats to bomb Iranian facilities.”

US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan raised the prospect of an interim agreement with Iran, to allow more time for nuclear negotiations, in talks with his Israeli counterpart, Eyal Hulata, the Axios news site reported last week.

A pair of American sources said Sullivan and Hulata were just “brainstorming,” and that the proposal was suggested by an unspecified European ally of the US.

The US sources said the proposal was for Iran to suspend a disallowed nuclear activity such as enriching uranium to 60 percent, in exchange for the US and allied countries releasing some frozen Iranian money, or issuing sanctions waivers on humanitarian goods.

An unnamed Israeli official cited in the Axios report said Hulata told Sullivan he was against the idea and Israel’s concern was that any interim agreement could become permanent, allowing Iran to maintain its nuclear infrastructure and supply of uranium it has built up.

While Israel has been more direct, staying her readiness to attack Iran’s nuclear program and allocating billions of dollars to IDF to prepare and train for a potential strike, the United States has been trying to reassure its allies in recent days that if diplomacy fails, other options are available.

“The United States remains committed to preventing Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. And we remain committed to a diplomatic outcome of the nuclear issue,” US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said at the Manama event, which was put on by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

“But if Iran isn’t willing to engage seriously, then we will look at all of the options necessary to keep the United States secure,” he said.

However, Iran has proven on several occasions that they are not soft power. In retaliation for the assasination of general suleimani Tehran fired precision missiles from their territories and they successfully destroyed American military base in northern Iraq. On another occasion the Houthi forces in Yemen flew barrages of Armed drones into Aramco oil field in Saudi Arabia crippling oil production, Iran was behind the attack.

Any aggressive act against Iran will yeild response from Tehran no matter how and irrespective of who is the aggressor and may not halt the Persia nuclear programs for the time being.


Currently, Iran is not known to  possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and has been signatory to treaties repudiating the possession of WMDs including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 


Iran has first-hand knowledge of WMD effects as over 100,000 Iranian troops and civilians were victims of chemical weapons during the 1980s Iran–Iraq War.


It is no long a new apotheosis that threatening Iran by America and allies, economy sanctions or "economy Terrorism" as Tehran called it has always been counterproductive and by continuing doing so America is only putting all it's Allies in the region at risk, although Washington has repeatedly claims all options are on the table.

In contrast, the he officials of the United States have warned Israel that its attacks against the Iranian nuclear program are counterproductive and have enabled Tehran to rebuild an even more efficient enrichment system, according to the New York Times report Sunday.

NYT, citing officials familiar with the behind-the-scenes discussion between Washington and Jerusalem, as the Biden Administration continues to try and bring Iran back into the nuclear deal, the report said that Israeli officials have dismissed the warnings, saying they have “no intention of letting up.”

While in the last 20 months there have been four explosions at Iranian nuclear facilities attributed to Israel, along with the killing of Iran’s top nuclear scientist, the report said Washington officials have cautioned their Israeli counterparts that while such efforts may be “tactically satisfying,” they are “ultimately counterproductive.” And that Iran has managed to resume enrichment within months, often installing newer machines that can enrich uranium far faster.

However, the officials said Israel appeared unmoved by the arguments, and this was one of the many areas on which the US and Israel disagree regarding efforts to thwart Tehran’s drive to build nuclear weapons.

Further complicating matters was the fact that Iran has apparently managed to improve its defenses, particularly in the cyber field, the report said. As a consequence, cyber attacks like the Stuxnet attack that crippled centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear enrichment site for more than a year, an attack widely reported to be a joint US-Israeli effort, have become “much harder now to pull off.”

The major concern now was how close Iran has come to being able to build a nuclear weapon since then-US president Donald Trump withdrew the US from the deal in 2018.

This week, with Iran set for talks with world powers in Vienna on November 29, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tehran had again increased its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

Iran’s stockpile, as of November 6, was many times in excess of the limit laid down in the agreement with world powers, said the IAEA report. Such highly enriched uranium can be easily refined to make atomic weapons, which is why world powers have sought to contain Tehran’s nuclear program.

The Vienna-based agency told members that it is still not able to verify Iran’s exact stockpile of enriched uranium due to the limitations Tehran imposed on UN inspectors earlier this year.

The IAEA has been unable to access surveillance footage of Iranian nuclear sites or of online enrichment monitors and electronic seals since February. The agency’s chief, Rafael Mariano Grossi, told The Associated Press this month that the situation was like “flying in a heavily clouded sky.”

Sunday’s NYT report said that since abandoning the agreement, Iran had managed to reduce its breakout time to a bomb from about a year to just a few weeks.

“Before Mr. Trump decided to scrap the deal, Iran had adhered to the limits of the 2015 agreement — which by most estimates kept it about a year from ‘breakout,’ the point where it has enough material for a bomb. While estimates vary, that buffer is now down to somewhere between three weeks and a few months, which would change the geopolitical calculation throughout the Middle East,” the report said.

US officials have publicly warned that Iran’s violations are making it increasingly unlikely that there can be a return to the 2015 deal as it was.


The US envoy for Iran Robert Malley warned Friday that Tehran was approaching the point of no return for reviving a nuclear deal after it boosted its stocks of enriched uranium before the talks resume this month.

“The time will come if Iran continues at this pace with the advancements they’ve made, [it] will make it impossible even if we were going to go back to the JCPOA to recapture the benefits,” Malley told the Manama Dialogue conference in Bahrain, referring to the deal by its official name, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

“Iran’s advances are spreading alarm across the region… that’s what’s making the clock tick faster and making all of us say that the time is short for a return to the JCPOA,” Malley said.

And I want to be clear, because there’s no ambiguity about what they seem to be doing now, which is to drag their feet on the nuclear talks and accelerate the progress in their nuclear program,” he added.

The US envoy said he was not encouraged by the statements from the new Iranian government of President Ebrahim Raisi, which earlier on Friday accused Washington of conducting a “propaganda campaign” against the country.

With the possibility of a return to the 2015 deal fading, the US was examining the possibility of hammering out an interim deal with Iran, the New York Times report said, confirming a separate report last week. “Inside the White House, there has been a scramble in recent days to explore whether some kind of interim deal might be possible to freeze Iran’s production of more enriched uranium and its conversion of that fuel to metallic form — a necessary step in fabricating a warhead,” the Times said. “In return, the United States might ease a limited number of sanctions. That would not solve the problem. But it might buy time for negotiations, while holding off Israeli threats to bomb Iranian facilities.”

US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan raised the prospect of an interim agreement with Iran, to allow more time for nuclear negotiations, in talks with his Israeli counterpart, Eyal Hulata, the Axios news site reported last week.

A pair of American sources said Sullivan and Hulata were just “brainstorming,” and that the proposal was suggested by an unspecified European ally of the US.

The US sources said the proposal was for Iran to suspend a disallowed nuclear activity such as enriching uranium to 60 percent, in exchange for the US and allied countries releasing some frozen Iranian money, or issuing sanctions waivers on humanitarian goods.

An unnamed Israeli official cited in the Axios report said Hulata told Sullivan he was against the idea and Israel’s concern was that any interim agreement could become permanent, allowing Iran to maintain its nuclear infrastructure and supply of uranium it has built up.

While Israel has been more direct, staying her readiness to attack Iran’s nuclear program and allocating billions of dollars to IDF to prepare and train for a potential strike, the United States has been trying to reassure its allies in recent days that if diplomacy fails, other options are available.

“The United States remains committed to preventing Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. And we remain committed to a diplomatic outcome of the nuclear issue,” US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said at the Manama event, which was put on by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

“But if Iran isn’t willing to engage seriously, then we will look at all of the options necessary to keep the United States secure,” he said.

However, Iran has proven on several occasions that they are not soft power. In retaliation for the assasination of general suleimani Tehran fired precision missiles from their territories and they successfully destroyed American military base in northern Iraq. On another occasion the Houthi forces in Yemen flew barrages of Armed drones into Aramco oil field in Saudi Arabia crippling oil production, Iran was behind the attack.

Any aggressive act against Iran will yeild response from Tehran no matter how and irrespective of who is the aggressor and may not halt the Persia nuclear programs for the time being.


Currently, Iran is not known to  possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and has been signatory to treaties repudiating the possession of WMDs including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 


Iran has first-hand knowledge of WMD effects as over 100,000 Iranian troops and civilians were victims of chemical weapons during the 1980s Iran–Iraq War.

Incase talks fail, More sanctions are coming against Tehran as Israel, US hold secret meeting over ‘Plan B’ on Iran

Incase talks fail, More sanctions are coming against Tehran as Israel, US hold secret meeting over ‘Plan B’ on Iran


Tel Aviv and Washington have been secretly meeting over a possible imposition of additional sanctions against Tehran.


According to the report by Axios, Israel and the U.S. have held secret discussions in the past week over a “Plan B” in case talks with Iran over its nuclear program fail.


The report indicated that one of these meetings was held between U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan and his Israeli counterpart, Eyal Hulata, via a secure video conference callwhere  the Israeli side noted the importance of developing a “Plan B” regarding the Iranian threat as diplomatic talks with Tehran have reached a stalemate and the regime’s nuclear program only seems to be accelerating.


According to an Israeli official cited by Axois, the U.S. said it was also concerned about Iran and would impose additional sanctions on Tehran if the talks do not resume soon.


 

The U.S. “remains engaged in ongoing consultations with the Israeli government on a range of issues related to the challenge posed by Iran,” a White House spokesperson told Axios.


On Tuesday, Iran signaled that negotiations would resume in the upcoming weeks but did not specify an actual date, Iranian news agency IRNA reported.


Negotiations held in Vienna over Iran’s nuclear agreement were cut short following the election of Ebrahim Raisi as president in mid-June and have not resumed since.


Months later, Western powers have expressed concern that the time for negotiations is running out, as Iran’s nuclear program is expanding beyond the limits set by the original deal.


German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas warned on Thursday that the West was losing its patience. “The clock is ticking. We’re not going to wait two or three months for the Iranian delegation to come back to the table in Vienna,” he said, according to France24.


Washington indicated on Thursday that it was prepared to be patient, while considering other contingency plans in case Tehran does not cooperate, Reuters reported.


“We’re still interested. We still want to come back to the table,” a senior U.S. State Department official was cited by Reuters as saying. “The window of opportunity is open. It won’t be open forever if Iran takes a different course,” he added.


“The ‘Plan B’ that we’re concerned about is the one that Iran may be contemplating, where they want to continue to build their nuclear program and not be seriously engaged in talks to return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.”


Tel Aviv and Washington have been secretly meeting over a possible imposition of additional sanctions against Tehran.


According to the report by Axios, Israel and the U.S. have held secret discussions in the past week over a “Plan B” in case talks with Iran over its nuclear program fail.


The report indicated that one of these meetings was held between U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan and his Israeli counterpart, Eyal Hulata, via a secure video conference callwhere  the Israeli side noted the importance of developing a “Plan B” regarding the Iranian threat as diplomatic talks with Tehran have reached a stalemate and the regime’s nuclear program only seems to be accelerating.


According to an Israeli official cited by Axois, the U.S. said it was also concerned about Iran and would impose additional sanctions on Tehran if the talks do not resume soon.


 

The U.S. “remains engaged in ongoing consultations with the Israeli government on a range of issues related to the challenge posed by Iran,” a White House spokesperson told Axios.


On Tuesday, Iran signaled that negotiations would resume in the upcoming weeks but did not specify an actual date, Iranian news agency IRNA reported.


Negotiations held in Vienna over Iran’s nuclear agreement were cut short following the election of Ebrahim Raisi as president in mid-June and have not resumed since.


Months later, Western powers have expressed concern that the time for negotiations is running out, as Iran’s nuclear program is expanding beyond the limits set by the original deal.


German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas warned on Thursday that the West was losing its patience. “The clock is ticking. We’re not going to wait two or three months for the Iranian delegation to come back to the table in Vienna,” he said, according to France24.


Washington indicated on Thursday that it was prepared to be patient, while considering other contingency plans in case Tehran does not cooperate, Reuters reported.


“We’re still interested. We still want to come back to the table,” a senior U.S. State Department official was cited by Reuters as saying. “The window of opportunity is open. It won’t be open forever if Iran takes a different course,” he added.


“The ‘Plan B’ that we’re concerned about is the one that Iran may be contemplating, where they want to continue to build their nuclear program and not be seriously engaged in talks to return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.”

STRATEGIC LIES AND STRATEGIC DECEPTIONS: America Needs to Start Telling the Truth About Israel’s Nukes

STRATEGIC LIES AND STRATEGIC DECEPTIONS: America Needs to Start Telling the Truth About Israel’s Nukes


American politicians often warn that if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, it will spark a nuclear stampede across the Middle East. Allowing Tehran to get the bomb, Senator Robert Menendez, the current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, predicted in March 2020, could “set off a dangerous arms race in the region.” In an interview in December, President-elect Joe Biden cautioned that if Iran went nuclear, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt might too, “and the last goddamn thing we need in that part of the world is a buildup of nuclear capability.”

Such statements are so familiar that it’s easy to overlook their artifice. In warning that Iran could turn the Middle East nuclear, American politicians imply that the region is nuclear-free now. But it’s not. Israel already has nuclear weapons. You’d just never know it from America’s leaders, who have spent the last half-century feigning ignorance. This deceit undercuts America’s supposed commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, and it distorts the American debate over Iran. It’s time for the Biden administration to tell the truth.

American officials began hiding the truth about Israeli nuclear weapons after Israeli leaders hid the truth from them. In the early 1960s, writes Avner Cohen in his book “The Worst Kept Secret,” Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion repeatedly told President John F. Kennedy that the reactor Israel was building in the desert town of Dimona “was for peaceful purposes only.” When the United States sent inspectors to the site, the Israelis concocted an elaborate ruse, which included building fake walls to conceal the elevators that led to an underground reprocessing plant. By decade’s end, the die was cast. The C.I.A. concluded that Israel already possessed nuclear warheads.

So Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meir hatched a deal. Neither Israel nor the United States would acknowledge that Israel had nuclear weapons, and Washington would not pressure Israel to submit them to international oversight. For 50 years now, American presidents have abided by the bargain. Scholars believe that when Israel tested a nuclear weapon in the Indian Ocean in 1979, the Carter administration covered it up. In 2009, when a journalist asked Barack Obama if he knew of “any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?” Mr. Obama responded, “I don’t want to speculate.”

Feigning ignorance about Israeli nuclear weapons makes a mockery of America’s efforts at nonproliferation. Mr. Obama vowed to pursue a nuclear-free world. Yet to prevent public discussion of Israel’s arsenal, his administration helped squelch a United Nations conference on a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. The Biden administration continues to impose punishing sanctions on Iran in an attempt to force its government to accept inspections more stringent than those required by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Meanwhile, Israel, which has never signed the N.P.T., permits no inspections at all.

This hypocrisy leads many around the world to smirk when American diplomats claim to be defending the “rules-based order.” It also empowers those Iranians who claim Tehran has the right to match its regional rival.

Finally, the American government’s deceptive silence prevents a more honest debate at home about the dangers an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose. American politicians sometimes say an Iranian bomb would pose an “existential” threat to Israel. That’s a dubious claim, given that Israel possesses a nuclear deterrent it can deploy on air, land and sea. But many Americans find the claim plausible because, according to recent polling conducted by Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland, barely 50 percent know Israel has nuclear weapons. A higher percentage thinks Tehran has the bomb.

Even if an Iranian bomb wouldn’t existentially threaten Israel, the United States should still work to forestall one diplomatically. With negotiations with Tehran at risk of collapse, the Biden administration should commit to lifting the sanctions that are crippling Iran’s economy in return for verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear capacity. But if those efforts fail — and the Biden administration faces pressure to wage war rather than allow Iran to gain the capacity to build a nuclear weapon — it’s crucial that Americans make an informed decision about the risk a nuclear Iran poses to America’s closest ally in the Middle East. That’s harder when the American government never publicly admits that Israel has the means to deter a nuclear attack.

The Biden administration is not going to force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons. But that doesn’t mean it must undermine America’s global credibility and deceive its people by denying reality. Perhaps a more honest American discussion of Israel’s nuclear arsenal will breathe new life into the distant dream of a nuclear-free Middle East. Even if that doesn’t happen, it will be bracing, after a half-century of lying by omission, simply to hear America’s leaders tell the truth.

Peter Beinart (@PeterBeinart) is professor of journalism and political science at the Newmark School of Journalism at the City University of New York. He is also editor at large of Jewish Currents and writes The Beinart Notebook, a weekly newsletter."

American politicians often warn that if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, it will spark a nuclear stampede across the Middle East. Allowing Tehran to get the bomb, Senator Robert Menendez, the current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, predicted in March 2020, could “set off a dangerous arms race in the region.” In an interview in December, President-elect Joe Biden cautioned that if Iran went nuclear, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt might too, “and the last goddamn thing we need in that part of the world is a buildup of nuclear capability.”

Such statements are so familiar that it’s easy to overlook their artifice. In warning that Iran could turn the Middle East nuclear, American politicians imply that the region is nuclear-free now. But it’s not. Israel already has nuclear weapons. You’d just never know it from America’s leaders, who have spent the last half-century feigning ignorance. This deceit undercuts America’s supposed commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, and it distorts the American debate over Iran. It’s time for the Biden administration to tell the truth.

American officials began hiding the truth about Israeli nuclear weapons after Israeli leaders hid the truth from them. In the early 1960s, writes Avner Cohen in his book “The Worst Kept Secret,” Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion repeatedly told President John F. Kennedy that the reactor Israel was building in the desert town of Dimona “was for peaceful purposes only.” When the United States sent inspectors to the site, the Israelis concocted an elaborate ruse, which included building fake walls to conceal the elevators that led to an underground reprocessing plant. By decade’s end, the die was cast. The C.I.A. concluded that Israel already possessed nuclear warheads.

So Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meir hatched a deal. Neither Israel nor the United States would acknowledge that Israel had nuclear weapons, and Washington would not pressure Israel to submit them to international oversight. For 50 years now, American presidents have abided by the bargain. Scholars believe that when Israel tested a nuclear weapon in the Indian Ocean in 1979, the Carter administration covered it up. In 2009, when a journalist asked Barack Obama if he knew of “any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?” Mr. Obama responded, “I don’t want to speculate.”

Feigning ignorance about Israeli nuclear weapons makes a mockery of America’s efforts at nonproliferation. Mr. Obama vowed to pursue a nuclear-free world. Yet to prevent public discussion of Israel’s arsenal, his administration helped squelch a United Nations conference on a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. The Biden administration continues to impose punishing sanctions on Iran in an attempt to force its government to accept inspections more stringent than those required by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Meanwhile, Israel, which has never signed the N.P.T., permits no inspections at all.

This hypocrisy leads many around the world to smirk when American diplomats claim to be defending the “rules-based order.” It also empowers those Iranians who claim Tehran has the right to match its regional rival.

Finally, the American government’s deceptive silence prevents a more honest debate at home about the dangers an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose. American politicians sometimes say an Iranian bomb would pose an “existential” threat to Israel. That’s a dubious claim, given that Israel possesses a nuclear deterrent it can deploy on air, land and sea. But many Americans find the claim plausible because, according to recent polling conducted by Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland, barely 50 percent know Israel has nuclear weapons. A higher percentage thinks Tehran has the bomb.

Even if an Iranian bomb wouldn’t existentially threaten Israel, the United States should still work to forestall one diplomatically. With negotiations with Tehran at risk of collapse, the Biden administration should commit to lifting the sanctions that are crippling Iran’s economy in return for verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear capacity. But if those efforts fail — and the Biden administration faces pressure to wage war rather than allow Iran to gain the capacity to build a nuclear weapon — it’s crucial that Americans make an informed decision about the risk a nuclear Iran poses to America’s closest ally in the Middle East. That’s harder when the American government never publicly admits that Israel has the means to deter a nuclear attack.

The Biden administration is not going to force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons. But that doesn’t mean it must undermine America’s global credibility and deceive its people by denying reality. Perhaps a more honest American discussion of Israel’s nuclear arsenal will breathe new life into the distant dream of a nuclear-free Middle East. Even if that doesn’t happen, it will be bracing, after a half-century of lying by omission, simply to hear America’s leaders tell the truth.

Peter Beinart (@PeterBeinart) is professor of journalism and political science at the Newmark School of Journalism at the City University of New York. He is also editor at large of Jewish Currents and writes The Beinart Notebook, a weekly newsletter."

Tehran Ballistic Missiles: Iran’s president-elect Ebrahim Raisi would not meet with President Joe Biden nor negotiate, sanctions must be lifted unconditionally

Tehran Ballistic Missiles: Iran’s president-elect Ebrahim Raisi would not meet with President Joe Biden nor negotiate, sanctions must be lifted unconditionally

By Associated Press



Iran’s president-elect said Monday he would not meet with President Joe Biden nor negotiate over Tehran’s ballistic missile program and its support of regional terror proxies, sticking to a hard-line position following his landslide victory in last week’s election.




Judiciary chief Ebrahim Raisi also described himself as a “defender of human rights” when asked about his involvement in the 1988 mass execution of some 5,000 people. It marked the first time he’s been put on the spot on live television over that dark moment in Iranian history at the end of the Iran-Iraq war.


“The U.S. is obliged to lift all oppressive sanctions against Iran,” Raisi said at the news conference.


Raisi sat in front of a sea of microphones, most from Iran and countries home to militias supported by Tehran. He looked nervous at the beginning of his comments but slowly became more at ease over the hourlong news conference.


Asked about Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support of regional terror proxies, Raisi described the issues as “non-negotiable.”


Iran also relies on militias like Yemen’s Houthis, Gaza’s Hamas, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, deemed terror groups by a number of entities throughout the world, to fight proxy wars against enemies like Saudi Arabia and Israel, respectively.


On a possible meeting with Biden, Raisi simply answered: “No.” His competitor in the election, Abdolnasser Hemmati, had suggested during campaigning that he’d be potentially willing to meet Biden.


The White House did not immediately respond to Raisi’s statements Monday. Raisi will become the first serving Iranian president sanctioned by the U.S. government even before entering office, in part over his time as the head of Iran’s internationally criticized judiciary — one of the world’s top executioners.


The so-called victory of Raisi, a protégé of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, came amid the lowest turnout in the Islamic Republic’s history. Millions of Iranians stayed home in defiance of a vote they saw as tipped in Raisi’s favor.


Of those who did vote, 3.7 million people either accidentally or intentionally voided their ballots, far beyond the amount seen in previous elections and suggesting some wanted none of the four candidates. In official results, Raisi won 17.9 million votes overall, nearly 62% of the total 28.9 million cast.


Observers have called the Iranian elections a sham.

Raisi’s victory puts hard-liners firmly in control across the government as negotiations in Vienna continue to try to save a tattered deal meant to limit Iran’s nuclear program, at a time when Tehran is enriching uranium at 60%, its highest levels ever, though still short of weapons-grade levels. Representatives of the world powers party to the deal returned to their capitals for consultations following the latest round of negotiations on Sunday.


Top diplomats from nations involved in the talks said that further progress had been made Sunday between Iran and global powers to try to restore a 2015 agreement to contain Iranian nuclear development that was abandoned by the Trump administration. They said it was now up to the governments involved in the negotiations to make political decisions.


Raisi’s election victory has raised concerns that it could complicate a possible return to the nuclear agreement. In his remarks Monday, Raisi called sanctions relief as “central to our foreign policy” and exhorted the U.S. to “return and implement your commitments” in the deal.


On Saudi Arabia, which has recently started secret talks with Iran in Baghdad to reduce tensions with Iran, Raisi said that Iran would have “no problem” with a possible reopening of the Saudi Embassy in Tehran and the “restoration of relations faces no barrier.” The embassy was closed in 2016 when relations deteriorated.


Raisi struck a defiant tone, however, when asked about the 1988 executions, which saw sham retrials of political prisoners, militants and others that would become known as “death commissions.”

After Iran’s then-Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini accepted a U.N.-brokered cease-fire, members of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, heavily armed by Saddam Hussein, stormed across the Iranian border in a surprise attack. Iran ultimately blunted their assault.


The trials began around that time, with defendants asked to identify themselves. Those who responded “mujahedeen” were sent to their deaths, while others were questioned about their willingness to “clear minefields for the army of the Islamic Republic,” according to a 1990 Amnesty International report.

International rights groups estimate that as many as 5,000 people were executed. Raisi served on the commissions.

“I am proud of being a defender of human rights and of people’s security and comfort as a prosecutor wherever I was,” he said. “All actions I carried out during my office were always in the direction of defending human rights,” he added. “Today in the presidential post, I feel obliged to defend human rights.”

AP
By Associated Press



Iran’s president-elect said Monday he would not meet with President Joe Biden nor negotiate over Tehran’s ballistic missile program and its support of regional terror proxies, sticking to a hard-line position following his landslide victory in last week’s election.




Judiciary chief Ebrahim Raisi also described himself as a “defender of human rights” when asked about his involvement in the 1988 mass execution of some 5,000 people. It marked the first time he’s been put on the spot on live television over that dark moment in Iranian history at the end of the Iran-Iraq war.


“The U.S. is obliged to lift all oppressive sanctions against Iran,” Raisi said at the news conference.


Raisi sat in front of a sea of microphones, most from Iran and countries home to militias supported by Tehran. He looked nervous at the beginning of his comments but slowly became more at ease over the hourlong news conference.


Asked about Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support of regional terror proxies, Raisi described the issues as “non-negotiable.”


Iran also relies on militias like Yemen’s Houthis, Gaza’s Hamas, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, deemed terror groups by a number of entities throughout the world, to fight proxy wars against enemies like Saudi Arabia and Israel, respectively.


On a possible meeting with Biden, Raisi simply answered: “No.” His competitor in the election, Abdolnasser Hemmati, had suggested during campaigning that he’d be potentially willing to meet Biden.


The White House did not immediately respond to Raisi’s statements Monday. Raisi will become the first serving Iranian president sanctioned by the U.S. government even before entering office, in part over his time as the head of Iran’s internationally criticized judiciary — one of the world’s top executioners.


The so-called victory of Raisi, a protégé of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, came amid the lowest turnout in the Islamic Republic’s history. Millions of Iranians stayed home in defiance of a vote they saw as tipped in Raisi’s favor.


Of those who did vote, 3.7 million people either accidentally or intentionally voided their ballots, far beyond the amount seen in previous elections and suggesting some wanted none of the four candidates. In official results, Raisi won 17.9 million votes overall, nearly 62% of the total 28.9 million cast.


Observers have called the Iranian elections a sham.

Raisi’s victory puts hard-liners firmly in control across the government as negotiations in Vienna continue to try to save a tattered deal meant to limit Iran’s nuclear program, at a time when Tehran is enriching uranium at 60%, its highest levels ever, though still short of weapons-grade levels. Representatives of the world powers party to the deal returned to their capitals for consultations following the latest round of negotiations on Sunday.


Top diplomats from nations involved in the talks said that further progress had been made Sunday between Iran and global powers to try to restore a 2015 agreement to contain Iranian nuclear development that was abandoned by the Trump administration. They said it was now up to the governments involved in the negotiations to make political decisions.


Raisi’s election victory has raised concerns that it could complicate a possible return to the nuclear agreement. In his remarks Monday, Raisi called sanctions relief as “central to our foreign policy” and exhorted the U.S. to “return and implement your commitments” in the deal.


On Saudi Arabia, which has recently started secret talks with Iran in Baghdad to reduce tensions with Iran, Raisi said that Iran would have “no problem” with a possible reopening of the Saudi Embassy in Tehran and the “restoration of relations faces no barrier.” The embassy was closed in 2016 when relations deteriorated.


Raisi struck a defiant tone, however, when asked about the 1988 executions, which saw sham retrials of political prisoners, militants and others that would become known as “death commissions.”

After Iran’s then-Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini accepted a U.N.-brokered cease-fire, members of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, heavily armed by Saddam Hussein, stormed across the Iranian border in a surprise attack. Iran ultimately blunted their assault.


The trials began around that time, with defendants asked to identify themselves. Those who responded “mujahedeen” were sent to their deaths, while others were questioned about their willingness to “clear minefields for the army of the Islamic Republic,” according to a 1990 Amnesty International report.

International rights groups estimate that as many as 5,000 people were executed. Raisi served on the commissions.

“I am proud of being a defender of human rights and of people’s security and comfort as a prosecutor wherever I was,” he said. “All actions I carried out during my office were always in the direction of defending human rights,” he added. “Today in the presidential post, I feel obliged to defend human rights.”

AP

How Iran’s largest navy ship catches fire, sinks in Gulf of Oman

How Iran’s largest navy ship catches fire, sinks in Gulf of Oman

By Associated Press


The largest warship in the Iranian navy caught fire and later sank Wednesday in the Gulf of Oman under unclear circumstances, semi-official news agencies reported.

The Fars and Tasnim news agencies said efforts failed to save the support warship Kharg, named after the island that serves as the main oil terminal for Iran.

The blaze began around 2:25 a.m. and firefighters tried to contain it, Fars said. The vessel sank near the Iranian port of Jask, some 1,270 kilometers (790 miles) southeast of Tehran on the Gulf of Oman near the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf.

Photos circulated on Iranian social media of sailors wearing life jackets evacuating the vessel as a fire burned behind them. State TV and semiofficial news agencies referred to the Kharg as a “training ship.” Fars published video of thick, black smoke rising from the ship early Wednesday morning.

a “training ship.” Fars published video of thick, black smoke rising from the ship early Wednesday morning.

 
Satellite photos from Planet Labs Inc. analyzed by The Associated Press showed the Kharg off to the west of Jask on Tuesday. Satellites from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that track fires from space detected a blaze at the site of the Jask that started just before the time of the fire reported by Fars.

The Kharg serves as one of a few vessels in the Iranian navy capable of providing replenishment at sea for its other ships. It also can lift heavy cargo and serve as a launch point for helicopters. The warship, built in Britain and launched in 1977, entered the Iranian navy in 1984 after lengthy negotiations that followed Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Iran’s navy typically handles patrols in the Gulf of Oman and the wider seas, while the country’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard operates in the shallower waters of the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. In recent months, however, the navy launched a slightly larger commercial tanker called the Makran it converted into serving a similar function as the Kharg.

Iranian officials offered no cause for the fire aboard the Kharg. However, it comes after a series of mysterious explosions that began in 2019 targeting ships in the Gulf of Oman. The U.S. Navy later accused Iran of targeting the ships with limpet mines, timed explosives typically attached by divers to a vessel’s hull.

Iran denied targeting the vessels, though U.S. Navy footage showed members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard removing one unexploded limpet mine from a vessel. The incidents came amid heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran after then-President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew America from Tehran’s nuclear deal with world powers.

The sinking of the Kharg marks the latest naval disaster for Iran. In 2020 during an Iranian military training exercise, a missile mistakenly struck a naval vessel near the port of Jask, killing19 sailors and wounding 15. Also in 2018, an Iranian navy destroyer sank in the Caspian Sea.
By Associated Press


The largest warship in the Iranian navy caught fire and later sank Wednesday in the Gulf of Oman under unclear circumstances, semi-official news agencies reported.

The Fars and Tasnim news agencies said efforts failed to save the support warship Kharg, named after the island that serves as the main oil terminal for Iran.

The blaze began around 2:25 a.m. and firefighters tried to contain it, Fars said. The vessel sank near the Iranian port of Jask, some 1,270 kilometers (790 miles) southeast of Tehran on the Gulf of Oman near the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf.

Photos circulated on Iranian social media of sailors wearing life jackets evacuating the vessel as a fire burned behind them. State TV and semiofficial news agencies referred to the Kharg as a “training ship.” Fars published video of thick, black smoke rising from the ship early Wednesday morning.

a “training ship.” Fars published video of thick, black smoke rising from the ship early Wednesday morning.

 
Satellite photos from Planet Labs Inc. analyzed by The Associated Press showed the Kharg off to the west of Jask on Tuesday. Satellites from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that track fires from space detected a blaze at the site of the Jask that started just before the time of the fire reported by Fars.

The Kharg serves as one of a few vessels in the Iranian navy capable of providing replenishment at sea for its other ships. It also can lift heavy cargo and serve as a launch point for helicopters. The warship, built in Britain and launched in 1977, entered the Iranian navy in 1984 after lengthy negotiations that followed Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Iran’s navy typically handles patrols in the Gulf of Oman and the wider seas, while the country’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard operates in the shallower waters of the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. In recent months, however, the navy launched a slightly larger commercial tanker called the Makran it converted into serving a similar function as the Kharg.

Iranian officials offered no cause for the fire aboard the Kharg. However, it comes after a series of mysterious explosions that began in 2019 targeting ships in the Gulf of Oman. The U.S. Navy later accused Iran of targeting the ships with limpet mines, timed explosives typically attached by divers to a vessel’s hull.

Iran denied targeting the vessels, though U.S. Navy footage showed members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard removing one unexploded limpet mine from a vessel. The incidents came amid heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran after then-President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew America from Tehran’s nuclear deal with world powers.

The sinking of the Kharg marks the latest naval disaster for Iran. In 2020 during an Iranian military training exercise, a missile mistakenly struck a naval vessel near the port of Jask, killing19 sailors and wounding 15. Also in 2018, an Iranian navy destroyer sank in the Caspian Sea.

Nuclear deal talks restart: Iran says it could enrich uranium to 90% purity if it wanted to, but is ‘not seeking weapon’ - Rouhani

Nuclear deal talks restart: Iran says it could enrich uranium to 90% purity if it wanted to, but is ‘not seeking weapon’ - Rouhani


(RT) The enrichment of weapons-grade uranium is within Iran's reach, but it chose to stick to a lower purity level because it does not want to make a bomb, President Hassan Rouhani has said as talks to revive the nuclear deal continue.


This week, Iran announced it would start enriching uranium to 60% purity after reporting an alleged Israeli sabotage attack at its Natanz nuclear facility, a move it said was intended to undermine indirect Iranian-US negotiations for a return to the 2015 agreement.

Speaking on Thursday, Rouhani dismissed US and European concerns about Iran moving toward weapons-grade uranium.

He also said Tehran would resume commitments under the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), once Western signatories uphold their side of the bargain.

“We could have done 60% [enrichment] before. Today we can do 90% enrichment if we want to, but we are not seeking a nuclear bomb,” he said during the inauguration of petrochemical projects.

Whenever you return to the JCPOA commitments, we will return to our obligations immediately and our enrichment will not be above 3.67% as allowed by the JCPOA,” he added, according to the Mehr news agency.

France, Britain and Germany have expressed “concern” at Iran's plans to achieve 60% enrichment and to install 1,000 additional nuclear centrifuges at Natanz.

The ‘E3’ trio signed the JCPOA in 2015, along with Russia, China, Iran, the EU and the US, before President Donald Trump announced America's unilateral withdrawal from the deal in 2018.

The deal's other signatories are mediating indirect talks for the agreement's revival between Iran and the US in Vienna, with discussions resuming on Thursday.

The parties have agreed to try and compile a list of US sanctions that could be lifted alongside nuclear commitments Iran could return to, according to Reuters. Washington has previously demanded Iran uphold its commitments under the nuclear deal before providing sanctions relief.

Under the JCPOA, Iran is not permitted to enrich uranium to a higher purity than 3.67%, while there are also limits on the centrifuges it can use and the amount of uranium it can stockpile.

The country began breaching its JCPOA commitments after Trump announced the US' withdrawal from the deal and imposed a “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions against Tehran.


Source

(RT) The enrichment of weapons-grade uranium is within Iran's reach, but it chose to stick to a lower purity level because it does not want to make a bomb, President Hassan Rouhani has said as talks to revive the nuclear deal continue.


This week, Iran announced it would start enriching uranium to 60% purity after reporting an alleged Israeli sabotage attack at its Natanz nuclear facility, a move it said was intended to undermine indirect Iranian-US negotiations for a return to the 2015 agreement.

Speaking on Thursday, Rouhani dismissed US and European concerns about Iran moving toward weapons-grade uranium.

He also said Tehran would resume commitments under the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), once Western signatories uphold their side of the bargain.

“We could have done 60% [enrichment] before. Today we can do 90% enrichment if we want to, but we are not seeking a nuclear bomb,” he said during the inauguration of petrochemical projects.

Whenever you return to the JCPOA commitments, we will return to our obligations immediately and our enrichment will not be above 3.67% as allowed by the JCPOA,” he added, according to the Mehr news agency.

France, Britain and Germany have expressed “concern” at Iran's plans to achieve 60% enrichment and to install 1,000 additional nuclear centrifuges at Natanz.

The ‘E3’ trio signed the JCPOA in 2015, along with Russia, China, Iran, the EU and the US, before President Donald Trump announced America's unilateral withdrawal from the deal in 2018.

The deal's other signatories are mediating indirect talks for the agreement's revival between Iran and the US in Vienna, with discussions resuming on Thursday.

The parties have agreed to try and compile a list of US sanctions that could be lifted alongside nuclear commitments Iran could return to, according to Reuters. Washington has previously demanded Iran uphold its commitments under the nuclear deal before providing sanctions relief.

Under the JCPOA, Iran is not permitted to enrich uranium to a higher purity than 3.67%, while there are also limits on the centrifuges it can use and the amount of uranium it can stockpile.

The country began breaching its JCPOA commitments after Trump announced the US' withdrawal from the deal and imposed a “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions against Tehran.


Source

NUCLEAR DEAL: US, Iran hold 1st indirect talks in Vienna

NUCLEAR DEAL: US, Iran hold 1st indirect talks in Vienna


The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran are holding indirect talks on Tuesday in what could be the first step toward reviving the 2015 nuclear deal that constrains Tehran's nuclear facilities in exchange for sanctions relief, ABC news reported.


According to the report, the indirect meetings which was hosted by the European Union will work toward two separate agreements -- on how the U.S. and Iran can both return to compliance with the deal's terms.


It should be recalled that the former U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the accord in 2018, re-imposing strict U.S. sanctions on Iran's economy and government which was termed Economic Terrorism against the Islamic Republic.


Tehran in response began violating the restrictions on its nuclear program by enriching more uranium at higher levels, and with more advanced centrifuges which Iranian authorities claimed us reversible.


But especially amid fierce pressure in Washington and from regional allies like Israel, a renewed nuclear deal would still leave a long road ahead for the Biden administration, which seeks to "lengthen and strengthen" the original agreement, including by addressing Iran's support for proxy forces across the region and its ballistic missile program.


"We don't underestimate the scale of the challenges ahead. These are early days. We don't anticipate an early or immediate breakthrough," State Department spokesperson Ned Price said Monday -- before calling the indirect talks a "healthy step forward."


U.S. special envoy for Iran Rob Malley will lead the delegation, which will meet with European, Chinese and Russian counterparts. Iran's delegation will have its own separate meetings with those teams, which together constitute the remaining members of the agreement.


While there is no face-to-face meeting planned with Iran, the U.S. still "remains open" to one, according to Price. The U.S. first offered to meet the Iranians in February, but weeks of outreach through European allies have been rejected by the Iranian government.


While both sides have downplayed Tuesday's meetings, it could mark the beginning of a quick return to the deal, which saw Iran agree to international inspections of and certain time-limited restrictions on its nuclear program. In exchange, sanctions were lifted by the United Nations, the U.S., and the other world powers who signed on -- the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China.


But especially amid fierce pressure in Washington and from regional allies like Israel, a renewed nuclear deal would still leave a long road ahead for the Biden administration, which seeks to "lengthen and strengthen" the original agreement, including by addressing Iran's support for proxy forces across the region and its ballistic missile program.


"We don't underestimate the scale of the challenges ahead. These are early days. We don't anticipate an early or immediate breakthrough," State Department spokesperson Ned Price said Monday -- before calling the indirect talks a "healthy step forward."


U.S. special envoy for Iran Rob Malley will lead the delegation, which will meet with European, Chinese and Russian counterparts. Iran's delegation will have its own separate meetings with those teams, which together constitute the remaining members of the agreement.


While there is no face-to-face meeting planned with Iran, the U.S. still "remains open" to one, according to Price. The U.S. first offered to meet the Iranians in February, but weeks of outreach through European allies have been rejected by the Iranian government.


Just last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted a face-to-face meeting was "unnecessary." Iran has called for the U.S. to move first in returning to the deal since Trump was the first to violate it, even refusing to meet the Americans until the U.S. government begins lifting sanctions -- while Biden has vowed to keep sanctions in place until Iran returns to compliance.


"What is promising about the Vienna talks is there seems to be an understanding now by both the Biden administration and the Iranians that neither side is going to go first. It may seem like semantics, and maybe it is. But I think what we have is at least the germ of a process whereby both sides can say we're moving simultaneously, both sides can save a little face and put together a roadmap going forward," said Suzanne DiMaggio, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington-based think tank.


The talks begin Tuesday in Vienna, the capital of Austria, where much of the diplomacy around the original deal unfolded. While they're slated for one day, it could extend on, especially if the separate "working groups" make progress and bring in technical experts to finalize details on Iranian and U.S. compliance.


That alone will be no easy task. There are critical questions remaining, including how quickly Iran can dismantle the advanced centrifuges now spinning, how it will reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, and what to do about its gains in research and development as it violated its terms of the deal.


On the U.S. side, there are questions around which sanctions the Biden administration will lift, after the Trump administration targeted hundreds of Iranian businesses, officials, economic sectors, and state-owned firms and agencies.


Iran has called for all Trump-era sanctions to be removed, saying they violated the deal. But the State Department indicated Monday that it will only lift those related to Iran's nuclear program.


"We certainly will not entertain unilateral gestures or concessions to get Iran -- to induce Iran to a better place," Price said during the department's daily press briefing. "We'll continue to be guided by what the original JCPOA called for, which is nuclear sanctions."


But Press TV, an Iranian state media outlet, reported that Malley and the U.S. delegation will "leave Vienna empty-handed if the Tuesday meeting would result in anything other than the removal of all U.S. sanctions," citing an "an informed source close to the Iranian negotiating team."



The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran are holding indirect talks on Tuesday in what could be the first step toward reviving the 2015 nuclear deal that constrains Tehran's nuclear facilities in exchange for sanctions relief, ABC news reported.


According to the report, the indirect meetings which was hosted by the European Union will work toward two separate agreements -- on how the U.S. and Iran can both return to compliance with the deal's terms.


It should be recalled that the former U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the accord in 2018, re-imposing strict U.S. sanctions on Iran's economy and government which was termed Economic Terrorism against the Islamic Republic.


Tehran in response began violating the restrictions on its nuclear program by enriching more uranium at higher levels, and with more advanced centrifuges which Iranian authorities claimed us reversible.


But especially amid fierce pressure in Washington and from regional allies like Israel, a renewed nuclear deal would still leave a long road ahead for the Biden administration, which seeks to "lengthen and strengthen" the original agreement, including by addressing Iran's support for proxy forces across the region and its ballistic missile program.


"We don't underestimate the scale of the challenges ahead. These are early days. We don't anticipate an early or immediate breakthrough," State Department spokesperson Ned Price said Monday -- before calling the indirect talks a "healthy step forward."


U.S. special envoy for Iran Rob Malley will lead the delegation, which will meet with European, Chinese and Russian counterparts. Iran's delegation will have its own separate meetings with those teams, which together constitute the remaining members of the agreement.


While there is no face-to-face meeting planned with Iran, the U.S. still "remains open" to one, according to Price. The U.S. first offered to meet the Iranians in February, but weeks of outreach through European allies have been rejected by the Iranian government.


While both sides have downplayed Tuesday's meetings, it could mark the beginning of a quick return to the deal, which saw Iran agree to international inspections of and certain time-limited restrictions on its nuclear program. In exchange, sanctions were lifted by the United Nations, the U.S., and the other world powers who signed on -- the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China.


But especially amid fierce pressure in Washington and from regional allies like Israel, a renewed nuclear deal would still leave a long road ahead for the Biden administration, which seeks to "lengthen and strengthen" the original agreement, including by addressing Iran's support for proxy forces across the region and its ballistic missile program.


"We don't underestimate the scale of the challenges ahead. These are early days. We don't anticipate an early or immediate breakthrough," State Department spokesperson Ned Price said Monday -- before calling the indirect talks a "healthy step forward."


U.S. special envoy for Iran Rob Malley will lead the delegation, which will meet with European, Chinese and Russian counterparts. Iran's delegation will have its own separate meetings with those teams, which together constitute the remaining members of the agreement.


While there is no face-to-face meeting planned with Iran, the U.S. still "remains open" to one, according to Price. The U.S. first offered to meet the Iranians in February, but weeks of outreach through European allies have been rejected by the Iranian government.


Just last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted a face-to-face meeting was "unnecessary." Iran has called for the U.S. to move first in returning to the deal since Trump was the first to violate it, even refusing to meet the Americans until the U.S. government begins lifting sanctions -- while Biden has vowed to keep sanctions in place until Iran returns to compliance.


"What is promising about the Vienna talks is there seems to be an understanding now by both the Biden administration and the Iranians that neither side is going to go first. It may seem like semantics, and maybe it is. But I think what we have is at least the germ of a process whereby both sides can say we're moving simultaneously, both sides can save a little face and put together a roadmap going forward," said Suzanne DiMaggio, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington-based think tank.


The talks begin Tuesday in Vienna, the capital of Austria, where much of the diplomacy around the original deal unfolded. While they're slated for one day, it could extend on, especially if the separate "working groups" make progress and bring in technical experts to finalize details on Iranian and U.S. compliance.


That alone will be no easy task. There are critical questions remaining, including how quickly Iran can dismantle the advanced centrifuges now spinning, how it will reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, and what to do about its gains in research and development as it violated its terms of the deal.


On the U.S. side, there are questions around which sanctions the Biden administration will lift, after the Trump administration targeted hundreds of Iranian businesses, officials, economic sectors, and state-owned firms and agencies.


Iran has called for all Trump-era sanctions to be removed, saying they violated the deal. But the State Department indicated Monday that it will only lift those related to Iran's nuclear program.


"We certainly will not entertain unilateral gestures or concessions to get Iran -- to induce Iran to a better place," Price said during the department's daily press briefing. "We'll continue to be guided by what the original JCPOA called for, which is nuclear sanctions."


But Press TV, an Iranian state media outlet, reported that Malley and the U.S. delegation will "leave Vienna empty-handed if the Tuesday meeting would result in anything other than the removal of all U.S. sanctions," citing an "an informed source close to the Iranian negotiating team."


Iran's IRGC Navy reveals new ‘missile city’ with advanced capabilities

Iran's IRGC Navy reveals new ‘missile city’ with advanced capabilities


The Islamic Republic of Iran on Monday released images and film footage of what it said was a new Revolutionary Guards base armed with cruise and ballistic missiles and "electronic warfare" equipment.

Watch: IRGC Navy has unveiled a new "missile city". Location undisclosed.

According to a report by state TV which described the base as a "missile city" and showed rows of what looked like missiles in a depot with cement walls. It did not give any details on its location. Alireza Tangsiri, the head of the elite Revolutionary Guards' naval unit, told state TV the base had equipment to detect enemy signals.

According to the report, the base's "electronic warfare equipment" included radar, monitoring, simulation and disruption systems. "The new systems and equipment make IRGC Navy capable of launching precision missiles from underground, launching naval mines with different ranges, firing at 360-degree[s], confronting electronic warfare, and increasing the range and destruction power in operations," reported Mehr, a semi-official Iranian news agency.


What we see today is a small section of the great and expansive missile capability of Revolutionary Guards' naval forces," Guards Commander Major General Hossein Salami said in the broadcast. According to Mehrs, Salami also "noted that four decades of enemies’ unity against the Islamic Republic has only resulted in their defeat and disappointment," and referred specifically to the "imposition of sanctions and waging [of] an economic war."

Iran, which routinely boasts of technological advances in its armed forces, has one of the biggest missile programs in the Middle East.

Last July, Iran's Revolutionary Guards Navy chief said that Tehran has built underground "missile cities" along the Gulf coastline, warning of a "nightmare for Iran's enemies."

Iran has established underground onshore and offshore missile cities all along the coasts of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman that would be a nightmare for Iran's enemies," Rear Admiral Ali Reza Tangsiri told the Sobh-e Sadeq weekly.

In late June, there was an explosion from an area in its eastern mountains that analysts believe hides an underground tunnel system and missile production sites. American and Israeli officials have denied sabotage of the missile site.

In 2019, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said that Iran has the largest underground facility program in the Middle East.

According to an assessment by the agency that year, "Iran's size and sophistication of its missile force continues to grow despite decades of counterproliferation efforts aimed at curbing its advancement Iran considers missiles to be a strategic necessity due to the limitations of its air force."

The study also explained that since Iran considers missiles to be a strategic necessity due to the limitations of its air force. "Therefore, lacking a modern air force necessitated Tehran to embrace ballistic missiles as a long-range strike capability to dissuade its adversaries in the region – particularly the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia – from attacking Iran," the report said.


Source


The Islamic Republic of Iran on Monday released images and film footage of what it said was a new Revolutionary Guards base armed with cruise and ballistic missiles and "electronic warfare" equipment.

Watch: IRGC Navy has unveiled a new "missile city". Location undisclosed.

According to a report by state TV which described the base as a "missile city" and showed rows of what looked like missiles in a depot with cement walls. It did not give any details on its location. Alireza Tangsiri, the head of the elite Revolutionary Guards' naval unit, told state TV the base had equipment to detect enemy signals.

According to the report, the base's "electronic warfare equipment" included radar, monitoring, simulation and disruption systems. "The new systems and equipment make IRGC Navy capable of launching precision missiles from underground, launching naval mines with different ranges, firing at 360-degree[s], confronting electronic warfare, and increasing the range and destruction power in operations," reported Mehr, a semi-official Iranian news agency.


What we see today is a small section of the great and expansive missile capability of Revolutionary Guards' naval forces," Guards Commander Major General Hossein Salami said in the broadcast. According to Mehrs, Salami also "noted that four decades of enemies’ unity against the Islamic Republic has only resulted in their defeat and disappointment," and referred specifically to the "imposition of sanctions and waging [of] an economic war."

Iran, which routinely boasts of technological advances in its armed forces, has one of the biggest missile programs in the Middle East.

Last July, Iran's Revolutionary Guards Navy chief said that Tehran has built underground "missile cities" along the Gulf coastline, warning of a "nightmare for Iran's enemies."

Iran has established underground onshore and offshore missile cities all along the coasts of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman that would be a nightmare for Iran's enemies," Rear Admiral Ali Reza Tangsiri told the Sobh-e Sadeq weekly.

In late June, there was an explosion from an area in its eastern mountains that analysts believe hides an underground tunnel system and missile production sites. American and Israeli officials have denied sabotage of the missile site.

In 2019, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said that Iran has the largest underground facility program in the Middle East.

According to an assessment by the agency that year, "Iran's size and sophistication of its missile force continues to grow despite decades of counterproliferation efforts aimed at curbing its advancement Iran considers missiles to be a strategic necessity due to the limitations of its air force."

The study also explained that since Iran considers missiles to be a strategic necessity due to the limitations of its air force. "Therefore, lacking a modern air force necessitated Tehran to embrace ballistic missiles as a long-range strike capability to dissuade its adversaries in the region – particularly the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia – from attacking Iran," the report said.


Source

Return to US, Iran nuclear deal will happen regardless says Ex-Mossad chief

Return to US, Iran nuclear deal will happen regardless says Ex-Mossad chief

Rouhani-Biden

An Israeli who is a former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo said on Wednesday that the US and Iran will likely return to a nuclear deal regardless of the current Israeli government's opposition, Jerusalem Post reported.

According to the report, speaking at a joint Commanders for Israel's Security and Haaretz conference, when asked if there would be a deal, Pardo said, "it is very hard to know for sure. I assume yes and the question is when, and how many variations will it undergo until we get there."


The former Mossad director also said that "I assume Israel will act like it should... [according to] its size... it can get to cooperative levels with" the US, but added that Jerusalem should not play games with the larger powers, given that it "has capabilities, but [they are] the capabilities of a small state – and at the end... it needs to recognize its place."

Without mentioning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by name, but clearly referring to him, he warned that if Israeli leaders yell at the world that they will act on their own against everyone, then Israel will not get anywhere in terms of influencing developments.

Regarding Israeli threats to attack Iran’s nuclear program he said, “because everyone understands that blowing up one nuclear site will not end this situation, anyone attempting to handle this along the same lines as the Iraqi nuclear reactor [which Israel attacked in 1981] or the Syrian nuclear reactor [which Israel attacked in 2007] is dreaming and lacks a minimal understanding of the capabilities of who we are confronting, and their ability to deal with a situation like this."

Moreover, Pardo said that after the US-Iraq 2003 war that America heavily leans more toward diplomacy and has a much stronger aversion to using force globally, saying the US “is not structured for using extensive force.”

Again he emphasized the need for Israel to dovetail its public actions with the US, given that Washington provides Israel much of its advanced weaponry.

Former Netanyahu national security council chief Jacob Nagel took issue with Pardo's statements, saying that regarding "returning to the old deal, I am concerned that we are non-stop galloping toward it... this will be a disaster if it happens.

"If I estimate who could thwart this, it would be the Iranians. If I estimate who is pushing to make this happen with all of their energy, it would be some Israelis – not those in official positions – and obviously the new US government," he said.

"If there is a deal, it will be the last" and will lead to great harm, Nagel said.

The former national security council chief also warned that if the US returns to the nuclear deal “there won’t be any motivation for the US” to snap back sanctions if Iran violates the deal.

In addition, he said, “I would rather that if they are going to race to a nuclear weapon, that it be now and not in 6 more years. I would rather that if there is going to be a conflict,” it be sooner, implying there were advantages to confronting Tehran while it is weakened by sanctions and while the world is more concerned with its nuclear violations.

Staking out a middle, more analytical path, former Mossad Iran desk chief Sima Shine said, "I think both sides are interested in getting to an agreement. Since they are interested, it seems they will get there. But there are quite a few obstacles along the road... but in the end, they both want to get a deal."

Shine also confirmed the likelihood of an interim partial deal of "less for less" – partial reduction of US sanctions for partial reduction of Iranian nuclear violations.

But she said that despite any possible interim deal, the end point would be full removal of sanctions for a full return to nuclear limitations. 

However, later Shine and Nagel fought over whether the US could be convinced to accept Israel’s maximal positions on the Islamic Republic or whether that was unrealistic.

Shine said she had heard from US contacts that Washington would not give Iran more than 12-18 months to agree to a longer and stronger improved nuclear deal before snapping back sanctions – which Nagel expressed doubts about. 

Iran has repeatedly said US can not be trusted following the Donald Trump's unilateral withdrawal of America from the deal.


Rouhani-Biden

An Israeli who is a former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo said on Wednesday that the US and Iran will likely return to a nuclear deal regardless of the current Israeli government's opposition, Jerusalem Post reported.

According to the report, speaking at a joint Commanders for Israel's Security and Haaretz conference, when asked if there would be a deal, Pardo said, "it is very hard to know for sure. I assume yes and the question is when, and how many variations will it undergo until we get there."


The former Mossad director also said that "I assume Israel will act like it should... [according to] its size... it can get to cooperative levels with" the US, but added that Jerusalem should not play games with the larger powers, given that it "has capabilities, but [they are] the capabilities of a small state – and at the end... it needs to recognize its place."

Without mentioning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by name, but clearly referring to him, he warned that if Israeli leaders yell at the world that they will act on their own against everyone, then Israel will not get anywhere in terms of influencing developments.

Regarding Israeli threats to attack Iran’s nuclear program he said, “because everyone understands that blowing up one nuclear site will not end this situation, anyone attempting to handle this along the same lines as the Iraqi nuclear reactor [which Israel attacked in 1981] or the Syrian nuclear reactor [which Israel attacked in 2007] is dreaming and lacks a minimal understanding of the capabilities of who we are confronting, and their ability to deal with a situation like this."

Moreover, Pardo said that after the US-Iraq 2003 war that America heavily leans more toward diplomacy and has a much stronger aversion to using force globally, saying the US “is not structured for using extensive force.”

Again he emphasized the need for Israel to dovetail its public actions with the US, given that Washington provides Israel much of its advanced weaponry.

Former Netanyahu national security council chief Jacob Nagel took issue with Pardo's statements, saying that regarding "returning to the old deal, I am concerned that we are non-stop galloping toward it... this will be a disaster if it happens.

"If I estimate who could thwart this, it would be the Iranians. If I estimate who is pushing to make this happen with all of their energy, it would be some Israelis – not those in official positions – and obviously the new US government," he said.

"If there is a deal, it will be the last" and will lead to great harm, Nagel said.

The former national security council chief also warned that if the US returns to the nuclear deal “there won’t be any motivation for the US” to snap back sanctions if Iran violates the deal.

In addition, he said, “I would rather that if they are going to race to a nuclear weapon, that it be now and not in 6 more years. I would rather that if there is going to be a conflict,” it be sooner, implying there were advantages to confronting Tehran while it is weakened by sanctions and while the world is more concerned with its nuclear violations.

Staking out a middle, more analytical path, former Mossad Iran desk chief Sima Shine said, "I think both sides are interested in getting to an agreement. Since they are interested, it seems they will get there. But there are quite a few obstacles along the road... but in the end, they both want to get a deal."

Shine also confirmed the likelihood of an interim partial deal of "less for less" – partial reduction of US sanctions for partial reduction of Iranian nuclear violations.

But she said that despite any possible interim deal, the end point would be full removal of sanctions for a full return to nuclear limitations. 

However, later Shine and Nagel fought over whether the US could be convinced to accept Israel’s maximal positions on the Islamic Republic or whether that was unrealistic.

Shine said she had heard from US contacts that Washington would not give Iran more than 12-18 months to agree to a longer and stronger improved nuclear deal before snapping back sanctions – which Nagel expressed doubts about. 

Iran has repeatedly said US can not be trusted following the Donald Trump's unilateral withdrawal of America from the deal.


Iran tensions at heart of UN nuclear watchdog meeting as Zarif says western powers start on wrong note for supporting US

Iran tensions at heart of UN nuclear watchdog meeting as Zarif says western powers start on wrong note for supporting US


Tehran last week said it will  limit inspections by the UN's nuclear watchdog into it's nuclear programs.


According to AFP report, the iran's new decision will be at the heart of a meeting of UN's Nuclear Watchdog board of governors on Monday, with some members mulling a formal rebuke to Tehran.


The report indicated that Western countries will be trying to find a way of censuring Iran without jeopardising fragile efforts to revive the 2015 deal between Tehran and major powers on its nuclear programme.


The possibility of a resolution criticising Iran being passed at the board attracted sharp diplomatic comment in the run-up to the meeting.


Meanwhile Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Monday that  the Western powers have started again on a wrong note by supporting United state.


"The Europeans have started a wrong move by supporting the US in the board of governors," he said.


"We think this move will lead to the situation becoming disorganised," he said, according to the official Irna agency.


While President Joe Biden has said he is willing to bring the United States back to the 2015 deal, on Sunday Iran said the time was "not suitable" to hold an informal meeting with the US and the remaining parties to the accord -- France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia.


Diplomatic sources say that no decision has yet been taken by European states on whether or not to put forward a resolution as Iran will only be discussed later in the week at the meeting, being held via videoconference.


- 'Unfortunate miscalculation' -


Russia has made clear its opposition to the prospect of a resolution criticising Iran.


Russian ambassador Mikhail Ulyanov tweeted on Monday that such a move would be an "unfortunate miscalculation".


Earlier he had said that "the common responsibility of all 35 Governors is to ensure that the debates (even heated) do not negatively affect diplomatic efforts aimed at full restoration of #JCPOA," using the formal name for the 2015 deal.


Russia's deputy foreign minister also blasted Washington for US strikes on Iran-backed militias in eastern Syria last week, saying the move threatened to scupper talks.


"There is no doubt that influential forces in Washington have taken steps in order to derail this meeting," Sergei Ryabkov was quoted by Russian state news agency TASS as saying.


The JCPOA was sent into disarray when former US President Donald Trump dramatically withdrew from it in 2018 and went on to impose swingeing economic sanctions on Iran which Tehran called Economic Terrorism against the iranians.


"We are running against time," Ulyanov said.


Zarif said that Iran hoped "that reason will prevail" at this week's meeting.


"If it does not we do have solutions," he said, without specifying what these were.


In a document circulated to IAEA member states ahead of this week's meeting, the Iranian mission to the organisation said a critical resolution would be "counterproductive and destructive".


The document also said the introduction of such a resolution would mark the "end" of the agreement reached with the IAEA last month to mitigate the impact of reduced inspections.


Under that temporary three-month arrangement, Iran has pledged to keep recordings "of some activities and monitoring equipment" and hand them over to the IAEA when US sanctions are lifted.


If a resolution censuring Iran is passed, it would be the first such resolution since June, which was itself the first in eight years.


- 'Time bought' by deal -


Diplomatic sources say the Iranian attempt at "blackmail" over a possible resolution has gone down badly among European states.


The latest tensions come after weeks in which Iran has continued breaking the limits laid down in the 2015 deal, for example by enriching uranium to 20 percent and producing uranium metal.


Tehran insists it has the right to take these steps in retaliation for American sanctions, and that the measures can be reversed as soon as sanctions are lifted.


According to Kelsey Davenport, director for Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association think-tank, "the US would be foolish to waste the time bought" by the temporary agreement hammered out between Iran and the IAEA.


"It would be positive to have a concrete reciprocal action from the US acknowledging that Iran showed some restraint by negotiating this technical understanding," she said.


"It is manageable in the short term but if drags on too long, it will start impacting the future of the nuclear deal and it will erode confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme," Davenport told AFP.




Tehran last week said it will  limit inspections by the UN's nuclear watchdog into it's nuclear programs.


According to AFP report, the iran's new decision will be at the heart of a meeting of UN's Nuclear Watchdog board of governors on Monday, with some members mulling a formal rebuke to Tehran.


The report indicated that Western countries will be trying to find a way of censuring Iran without jeopardising fragile efforts to revive the 2015 deal between Tehran and major powers on its nuclear programme.


The possibility of a resolution criticising Iran being passed at the board attracted sharp diplomatic comment in the run-up to the meeting.


Meanwhile Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Monday that  the Western powers have started again on a wrong note by supporting United state.


"The Europeans have started a wrong move by supporting the US in the board of governors," he said.


"We think this move will lead to the situation becoming disorganised," he said, according to the official Irna agency.


While President Joe Biden has said he is willing to bring the United States back to the 2015 deal, on Sunday Iran said the time was "not suitable" to hold an informal meeting with the US and the remaining parties to the accord -- France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia.


Diplomatic sources say that no decision has yet been taken by European states on whether or not to put forward a resolution as Iran will only be discussed later in the week at the meeting, being held via videoconference.


- 'Unfortunate miscalculation' -


Russia has made clear its opposition to the prospect of a resolution criticising Iran.


Russian ambassador Mikhail Ulyanov tweeted on Monday that such a move would be an "unfortunate miscalculation".


Earlier he had said that "the common responsibility of all 35 Governors is to ensure that the debates (even heated) do not negatively affect diplomatic efforts aimed at full restoration of #JCPOA," using the formal name for the 2015 deal.


Russia's deputy foreign minister also blasted Washington for US strikes on Iran-backed militias in eastern Syria last week, saying the move threatened to scupper talks.


"There is no doubt that influential forces in Washington have taken steps in order to derail this meeting," Sergei Ryabkov was quoted by Russian state news agency TASS as saying.


The JCPOA was sent into disarray when former US President Donald Trump dramatically withdrew from it in 2018 and went on to impose swingeing economic sanctions on Iran which Tehran called Economic Terrorism against the iranians.


"We are running against time," Ulyanov said.


Zarif said that Iran hoped "that reason will prevail" at this week's meeting.


"If it does not we do have solutions," he said, without specifying what these were.


In a document circulated to IAEA member states ahead of this week's meeting, the Iranian mission to the organisation said a critical resolution would be "counterproductive and destructive".


The document also said the introduction of such a resolution would mark the "end" of the agreement reached with the IAEA last month to mitigate the impact of reduced inspections.


Under that temporary three-month arrangement, Iran has pledged to keep recordings "of some activities and monitoring equipment" and hand them over to the IAEA when US sanctions are lifted.


If a resolution censuring Iran is passed, it would be the first such resolution since June, which was itself the first in eight years.


- 'Time bought' by deal -


Diplomatic sources say the Iranian attempt at "blackmail" over a possible resolution has gone down badly among European states.


The latest tensions come after weeks in which Iran has continued breaking the limits laid down in the 2015 deal, for example by enriching uranium to 20 percent and producing uranium metal.


Tehran insists it has the right to take these steps in retaliation for American sanctions, and that the measures can be reversed as soon as sanctions are lifted.


According to Kelsey Davenport, director for Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association think-tank, "the US would be foolish to waste the time bought" by the temporary agreement hammered out between Iran and the IAEA.


"It would be positive to have a concrete reciprocal action from the US acknowledging that Iran showed some restraint by negotiating this technical understanding," she said.


"It is manageable in the short term but if drags on too long, it will start impacting the future of the nuclear deal and it will erode confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme," Davenport told AFP.



US to impose UN sanctions 'snap back' on Iran: Trump

US to impose UN sanctions 'snap back' on Iran: Trump

 


Washington: (AFP) President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will activate a controversial mechanism aimed at reimposing UN sanctions on Iran, escalating a row with European allies that has huge repercussions for the Iranian nuclear deal.

Pompeo will travel to New York on Thursday to notify the United Nations Security Council that the US is triggering the so-called "snapback" procedure, which Britain, France and Germany say it doesn't have the right to do.

"It's a snapback, not uncommon," Trump told reporters, despite the contested measure having never been used before.

The move comes after the United States suffered a humiliating defeat at the Security Council last week when it failed to muster support for a resolution to extend a conventional arms embargo on Iran.

"Snapback" aims to restore all international sanctions against Iran that were lifted as part of the 2015 accord with Tehran that sought to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

But it also threatens to torpedo the historic Iran nuclear deal that the US, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany signed with Tehran in 2015.

Trump withdrew the US from the agreement, known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in 2018 and introduced American sanctions on Iran as part of a "maximum pressure" campaign against the Iranian regime.

Potential 'crisis'

Despite pulling out of the deal, America claims that, as a "participant" of the original agreement, it has the power to unilaterally reimpose UN sanctions on Iran.

A 2015 UN Security Council resolution ratifying the agreement negotiated by former president Barack Obama says participating states can unilaterally reinstall sanctions if Iran has failed to significantly comply with the accord.

The "snapback" procedure is supposed to lead to the re-establishment of sanctions after 30 days, without the possibility of Russia or China wielding their vetoes.

European countries on the Security Council contest the US' legal argument and fear that the return of sanctions will sink the nuclear deal, which they are battling to save.

"This will be (a) fully valid enforceable UN Security Council resolution. We have every expectation that it will be enforced just like every other UN Security Council resolution that is in place," Pompeo said.

Last week, only the Dominican Republic joined the United States in backing its call to extend a conventional arms embargo on Iran that expires on October 18.

The embargo expires under the terms of JCPOA. Although European countries had expressed concern about the 13-year embargo expiring, their main focus is on preserving the nuclear accord.

The vote highlighted how isolated the US is over Iran at the UN.

Experts say the snapback threatens to plunge the Security Council into crisis.

"Most of the council will reject the US argument that it retains the right to trigger snapback despite leaving the JCPOA. They will write off this process as a sham," UN expert Richard Gowan told AFP.

"The real winners in this process will be China and Russia, who will argue that they are defending the UN from US unilateralism, while the Europeans distance themselves from Washington," added Gowan, who works at the International Crisis Group think-tank.

Pompeo is scheduled to meet UN chief Antonio Guterres at the latter's residence in New York around 2:00 pm (1800 GMT) on Thursday when they will discuss Iran.

 


Washington: (AFP) President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will activate a controversial mechanism aimed at reimposing UN sanctions on Iran, escalating a row with European allies that has huge repercussions for the Iranian nuclear deal.

Pompeo will travel to New York on Thursday to notify the United Nations Security Council that the US is triggering the so-called "snapback" procedure, which Britain, France and Germany say it doesn't have the right to do.

"It's a snapback, not uncommon," Trump told reporters, despite the contested measure having never been used before.

The move comes after the United States suffered a humiliating defeat at the Security Council last week when it failed to muster support for a resolution to extend a conventional arms embargo on Iran.

"Snapback" aims to restore all international sanctions against Iran that were lifted as part of the 2015 accord with Tehran that sought to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

But it also threatens to torpedo the historic Iran nuclear deal that the US, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany signed with Tehran in 2015.

Trump withdrew the US from the agreement, known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in 2018 and introduced American sanctions on Iran as part of a "maximum pressure" campaign against the Iranian regime.

Potential 'crisis'

Despite pulling out of the deal, America claims that, as a "participant" of the original agreement, it has the power to unilaterally reimpose UN sanctions on Iran.

A 2015 UN Security Council resolution ratifying the agreement negotiated by former president Barack Obama says participating states can unilaterally reinstall sanctions if Iran has failed to significantly comply with the accord.

The "snapback" procedure is supposed to lead to the re-establishment of sanctions after 30 days, without the possibility of Russia or China wielding their vetoes.

European countries on the Security Council contest the US' legal argument and fear that the return of sanctions will sink the nuclear deal, which they are battling to save.

"This will be (a) fully valid enforceable UN Security Council resolution. We have every expectation that it will be enforced just like every other UN Security Council resolution that is in place," Pompeo said.

Last week, only the Dominican Republic joined the United States in backing its call to extend a conventional arms embargo on Iran that expires on October 18.

The embargo expires under the terms of JCPOA. Although European countries had expressed concern about the 13-year embargo expiring, their main focus is on preserving the nuclear accord.

The vote highlighted how isolated the US is over Iran at the UN.

Experts say the snapback threatens to plunge the Security Council into crisis.

"Most of the council will reject the US argument that it retains the right to trigger snapback despite leaving the JCPOA. They will write off this process as a sham," UN expert Richard Gowan told AFP.

"The real winners in this process will be China and Russia, who will argue that they are defending the UN from US unilateralism, while the Europeans distance themselves from Washington," added Gowan, who works at the International Crisis Group think-tank.

Pompeo is scheduled to meet UN chief Antonio Guterres at the latter's residence in New York around 2:00 pm (1800 GMT) on Thursday when they will discuss Iran.

Poster Speaks

Poster Speaks/box

Trending

randomposts