Friday, January 16, 2015
Lifting Iran Sanctions - not Easy for Obama or the UN
At a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron in Washington today, President Barack Obama issued a stern warning to Congress, saying that any legislation threatening additional sanctions against Iran could derail talks aimed at ending Iran's nuclear program in a peaceful manner. Prime Minister Cameron said he had made phone calls to try to convince US Senators to delay any action on sanctions. Obama set low expectations for a deal - less than 50 - 50, the President said at the press conference. He warned that legislation being considered by Congress to impose sanctions if the negotiations don't succeed could actually lead them to fail. "The chance of the negotiations collapsing is very high," Obama said, making an impassioned argument against the idea. He said sanction legislation now could lead to a "military showdown." Obama went so far as to say that if the negotiations fail, there will be at some point a heightened possibility of military confrontation, "and Congress will have to own that as well," Obama said. He later toned down the war rhetoric, saying, "I am not, repeat, not suggesting that we are in immediate war footing should negotiations with Iran fail." But he said if diplomatic efforts collapse, he will have to look at other options to fulfil his commitment not to let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon. Prime Minister Cameron said that he is making calls while in Washington to let Senators know that the UK believes that the eatlier sanctions imoised by the US, UK and European Union increased pressure on Iran that led to Iran coming to the table. He said he was telling Senators that "it's the opinion of the United Kingdom that further sanctions or further threat of sanctions at this point won't actually help to bring the talks to a successful conclusion, and they could fracture the international unity that there's been which has been so valuable in presenting a united front to Iran." ~~~~~ President Obama said he made the same points when he talked with Democrat lawmakers in Baltimore, warning that he would veto the Iran sanctions legislation. The President also had a tense exchange with Democrat Senator Bob Menendez,Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member, over his legislation that would impose new sanctions on Iran if the nuclear talks failed. Menendez questioned Obama’s negotiating strategy with Iran during the closed-door retreat for Senate Democrats attended by the President. Menendez, a leading supporter of sanctions, is working closely with Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois to introduce legislation in the coming days that would threaten new, deeper sanctions if Iran walked away from the negotiating table without a deal before the June deadline. But Obama said the move would be interpreted badly by Iran, as well as allies supporting the negotiations, and that the “likelihood of the entire negotiations collapsing is very high.” In addition, Obama said the US would be blamed for such a collapse and current partners who support the existing sanctions regime could pull out, because buying Iranian oil would be to their economic benefit. The President noted that Russia and China were among those who so far had backed the efforts. Obama also argued that the temporary deal - which has eased sanctions in exchange for a freeze on the development of Iran's nuclear program - has paid dividends : “We have not lost ground. Iran has not accelerated its program during the time these negotiations have taken place.” ~~~~~ At the White House news conference, Obama said, "Congress needs to show patience." He asked why it is important to take actions that might jeopardize the possibility of getting a deal over the next 60 to 90 days? "What is it precisely that is going to be accomplished?" Obama said. He said Iran came to the table under the assurance that there would be no new sanctions, and he said that even the threat of more sanctions could lead Iran to go back to building its nuclear program. ~~~~~ Meanwhile, US Secretary of State John Kerry met for nearly an hour with his Iranian counterpart in Paris in what was their second face-to-face encounter this week. The meeting with Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif took place at Kerry's hotel in the French capital before he returned to Washington. The pair spent six hours together in Geneva on Wednesday on the eve of a new round of nuclear negotiations among Iran, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany. The negotiators in Geneva grappled to reach a framework accord that would address international concerns about Iran's nuclear program by a March target date. Kerry was in Paris to show US solidarity with France following last week's terrorist attacks, and Zarif was in the city primarily to see French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. France has taken a tough public line on the negotiations, and French President Francois Hollande reiterated that point on Friday in a speech to 200 foreign diplomats. "France wants a final agreement but not in any conditions," he said. "With a clear approach : Yes to access of Iran to civil nuclear energy, no to its access to nuclear weapon. We won't compromise on that principle." ~~~~~ Dear readers, sanctions are a key issue in the nuclear negotiations with Iran. During the 2014 round of talks in Oman, Iranian negotiators reportedly pressed for the early lifting of UN Security Council sanctions to be part of any nuclear accord. The Obama administration is reportedly prepared to suspend US-imposed “nuclear-related” sanctions early in the implementation of an accord. But, the likely opposition of Congress would make it difficult for President Obama to honor such an offer, unless he decided to resort to the waiver authority granted the President by most sanctions legislation. The US Treasury has, since the first US sanctions against Iran in 1979, granted some 10,000 waivers. Iran surely recognizes that the uncertain political support for a deal in the US means that it has a narrow window of opportunity to get UN sanctions lifted, because the move could be blocked by an American veto -- and either a veto or voting 'yes' would be problematic for the United States. Once lifted, UN sanctions could not quickly or easily be reimposed in the event of Iranian cheating on its nuclear deal obligations -- although Russia and China voted in favor of sanctions on six occasions from 2006 to 2010, they might block any reintroduction. And now, President Obama faces a group of influential Senators determined to impose more US sanctions if Iran leaves the negotiating table. So, nothing is resolved either at the UN or in the US concerning Iran sanctions. But the very fact that Iran is pushing so hard to have them lifted indicates that the sanctions are effective. Congress holds the key cards and Obama has a weak hand in trying to stop the Senate's new sanction bill from being passed. If the President vetoes the bill, the Senators sponsoring the bill believe they have the votes to override. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If the sanctions are working – and they must be considering the position that Iran is taking we should force Iran to the bargaining table with more severe sanctions rather than follow Obamas threat to Congress concerning additional sanctions.
ReplyDeleteThis is just another question mark that Obama raises about where he stands on any issue concerning the Islamic World and the United States. Is he for the defeat of the jihadists terrorists – or isn’t he?
Clearly Obama, the United Nations, British Prime Minister David Cameron are on a different page from those of us who love freedom and America. They certainly stand for something – it’s just something that is not well understood and if it were understood it would not be reinforced by the American public.
DeleteAmerica must push to become much more self-sufficient (in every category possible) and adhere more to the warnings of Washington and Jefferson on becoming entangled with other countries, friends with other countries … but not bed buddies with them.
Prime Minister Cameron is in Washington DC and has been spouting the same rhetoric tht Obama has been about the dangers of NEW sanctions against Iran
ReplyDeleteCameron yesterday made the same point that critics of new sanctions legislation have been making for more than a year, which is that passing new legislation “would really jeopardize the negotiations.” And Cameron is right pushing through new sanctions legislation would risk blowing up the talks and preventing a deal from being reached. But then that is what Iran hawks have been after from the start. Sometimes they will falsely portray the successful interim agreement as a sell-out of U.S. interests, and sometimes they will lie about Iranian compliance with the interim agreement, but they usually pretend that their desire is to reach a satisfactory final deal.
Have we (the Western world of free nations) asked ourselves …”does Iran want a nuclear agreement that will stop their making nuclear weapons & enriching more nuclear material to be used for either themselves or to sell on the open market to countries like North Korea and the Islamic terrorists groups.”
More so does the opponents of Iran having a nuclear weapons capability really have a unified goal in their agenda or are they just shooting from the hip? One day this and the next day something else!
I think all along these “talks” have all been about delay, delay, and more delay to be used by Iran to get their nuclear program up to full production speed.
In February 2007 the IAEA (International Atomic energy Agency) stated that Iran had exactly ZERO IR-1 centrifuges being fed with UF6 (Uranium hexafluoride a stable of refining uranium for bombs) but were installing 656 of these IR-1 centrifuges to be feed later with UF6.
ReplyDelete2007 friends – where has the Obama administration been on this subject since then? Is American late to the ‘Big Dance’ one more time?
Are the chickens long out of the hen house on this matter? Is it time to re-visit the value of a direct assault on the Iranian nuclear program facilities?
We worry about a “rouge” nation using or selling for the use by terrorists a nuclear device … but only one nation has ever used such a device against another nation since August 1945!
Is allowing Iran to have their nuclear bomb, but with the understanding that any such use or sale of a bomb used would bring instant and dire results on Iran with NO QUESTIONS asked a plausible position that could bring Iran to the negotiating table with legitimate desires?
It’s no more blackmail that the Iranian government is using now about reducing sanctions against them.
IDEAS ARE PEACEFUL – HISTORY IS VIOLENT
DeleteThe crisis over Iran's nuclear program could end in three different ways:
ReplyDelete*First, diplomacy coupled with serious sanctions could convince Iran to abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. But this outcome is unlikely: the historical record indicates that a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons can rarely be dissuaded from doing so.
*The second possible outcome is that Iran stops short of testing a nuclear weapon but develops a breakout capability, the capacity to build and test one quite quickly.
*The third possible outcome of the standoff is that Iran continues its current course and publicly goes nuclear by testing a weapon.
I think any/all of these possibilities are far-fetched and not lasting over the long haul with Iran.
What is workable are 2 very extreme actions. The first is that we continue to keep and even increase the sanctions on Iran – squeeze them till they yell “uncle”. The second action is a swift surgical strike at all of Iran’s nuclear production and laboratory sites.
If we keep on this path of talks upon talks Iran will possess a larger nuclear arsenal than the United States has.
To deter Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, the new crop of Senate Republicans face a choice between international law and the law of unintended consequences.
ReplyDelete“We’re definitely getting played by the Iranians,” says Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, a leading proponent of sanctions. “Extending talks with Iran won’t achieve the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free Iran,” concurs Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
Inspections are not perfect, but their track record is preferable to other options.
After more than a decade of U.S. war in the region, is Iran weaker or stronger? How about militants like the Islamic State or jihadists in post-regime-change Libya? Does international law prevail, or the law of unintended consequences?
Should the Islamic Republic (I.R.) ever succeed in developing nuclear weapons through its disguise of a peaceful nuclear energy program, a great danger is its threat to the West’s ally in the dangerous and tumultuous Middle Eastern region: Israel.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the I.R. has offered to reduce its output of bomb-usable fuels, and to alter the design of the Arak plutonium reactor, it has hardly agreed to cease activity of the Fordo, a deep underground facility that has been heavily guarded by revolutionary forces. Therefore, the U.S. House has called for a solid guarantee that the I.R.’s capability of building atomic bombs be destroyed forever. Nuclear concessions alone are not the goal; permanent termination of missile programs and supporting terrorism must be included.
Last November, the American people spoke their minds in the midterm election. The Senate is now in Republican hands. The new, entirely Republican-controlled United States Congress will definitely challenge President Obama on global hotspots and his responses to them. U.S. and EU negotiations on the I.R.’s nuclear issues will resume on January 15. Republican lawmakers time and again have said that they will demand tougher sanctions on the I.R. if the negotiations do not stop its quest for atomic hegemony. Therefore, President Obama has an uphill battle for the rest of his term, particularly on foreign issues such as the behavior in Tehran.