Archive for December 4, 2013

White House: Final deal with Iran could include uranium enrichment

December 4, 2013

White House: Final deal with Iran could include uranium enrichment | JPost | Israel News.

By JTA, REUTERS

LAST UPDATED: 12/04/2013 03:22

In first on-the-record confirmation, White House spokeswoman says US willing to negotiate strictly limited enrichment program after Tehran agreed to accept rigorous monitoring and limits on level, scope, capacity, stockpiles.

US Secretary of State Kerry shakes the hand of Iranian counterpart Zarif in Geneva, Nov 24, 2013.

US Secretary of State Kerry shakes the hand of Iranian counterpart Zarif in Geneva, Nov 24, 2013. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse

WASHINGTON — A final deal with Iran could include a capacity for uranium enrichment, a White House spokesman said on Tuesday, seeking to clarify some of the terms of the interim deal signed between Tehran and world powers.

The United States does not recognize that Iran has a right to enrich, but “we are prepared to negotiate a strictly limited enrichment program in the end state,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman with the White House National Security Council.

This is because the Iranians have indicated for the first time that they are prepared to accept “rigorous monitoring and limits on level, scope, capacity and stockpiles,” she said in response to a query arising from a story first reported by the Washington Free Beacon.

It has been reported for months that the Obama administration and Western powers were prepared to tolerate low level enrichment as part of a permanent deal; Meehan’s statements Tuesday were the first on-the-record confirmation.

Israel opposes any permanent enrichment capacity, saying that at even low levels, the infrastructure required for such enrichment leaves Iran perilously close to the ability to manufacture a weapon.

“If we can reach an understanding on all of these strict constraints, then we can have an arrangement that includes a very modest amount of enrichment that is tied to Iran’s actual needs and that eliminates any near-term breakout capability,” Meehan said. “If we can’t, then we’ll be right back to insisting on no enrichment.”

Meehan cast the statement in response to persistent claims that the interim six-month deal agreed to last month by the major powers and Iran implies recognition of an Iranian “right” to enrich.

“Since the P5+1 would have to agree to the contours of a possible enrichment program, it is by definition not a ‘right’,” she said, using the acronym for the six powers – the United States, China, Russia, Germany, France and Britain – dealing with Iran.

“It is also important to note that Iran has acknowledged that issues raised in the UN Security Council resolutions have to be addressed and brought to a satisfactory conclusion before we agree to enrichment in the end state,” Meehan said, an apparent allusion to complaints by Israel and congressional lawmakers that the interim agreement does not dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, as required by the resolutions.

White House opposes new sanctions effort in Senate

The White House also said on Tuesday it opposes a fresh effort by some members of the US Senate to impose new sanctions against Iran, even if the new restrictions would not take effect for months.

Some senators have been discussing the idea of imposing new sanctions on Iran that would kick in after six months or if Iran violated terms of an interim deal reached 10 days ago that attempts to contain its nuclear program.

“If we pass sanctions now, even with a deferred trigger which has been discussed, the Iranians, and likely our international partners, will see us as having negotiated in bad faith,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

A recent survey conducted by Hart Research for the advocacy group Americans United for Change found that the majority of Americans want Congress to refrain from imposing new economic sanctions on Iran over the next six months.

Sixty-seven percent said they would prefer giving the interim deal signed in Geneva between Tehran and world powers a chance, while 25% disagreed, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The poll also found 34% of respondents supported the interim deal, while 22% opposed and 41% had no opinion. After a sample group was read a description of the deal, 63% favored it and only 24% were opposed.

Administration officials have been pushing lawmakers not to move ahead with a sanctions package, saying doing so risked alienating Tehran and other countries engaged in the talks by making Washington seem to be acting in bad faith.

But many lawmakers are skeptical about the agreement reached in Geneva between negotiators for Iran and the P5+1 and insist Washington should increase the pressure on Tehran by adding to sanctions.

Wendy Sherman, the US under secretary of state for political affairs, who led the US negotiating team in Geneva, was scheduled to hold a classified briefing on Iran for the entire House of Representatives on Wednesday morning.

The White House says a six-month window without new sanctions would allow negotiators to work on a comprehensive agreement to resolve the decade-old dispute over Iran’s nuclear program, which has stirred fears of a new Middle East war.

But lawmakers believe it was tough sanctions pushed by Congress – not the White House – that brought Tehran to the table and see no reason not to spell out tough consequences if Iran does not comply with the interim deal.

“That way we’re not negotiating in what-ifs,” a Senate aide said.

Members of Congress, including many of President Obama’s fellow Democrats, are generally more hawkish on Iran than the administration, and influential pro-Israel lobbyists have been pressing lawmakers to keep to a tough line.

Carney said there are concerns in the Obama administration that any new sanctions imposed by Congress would serve to undermine the core architecture of the sanctions program.

“Passing any new sanctions right now would undermine a peaceful resolution to this issue,” he said.

Iran rejects allegations that it has sought covertly to develop the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, saying it is enriching uranium solely for civilian purposes.

Congressional aides said it was too early to know whether an Iran sanctions package would be introduced as standalone legislation or as an amendment to a measure such as a defense authorization bill being considered by the Senate.

It also was not clear how far any legislation would go in the Senate, where Obama’s fellow Democrats control a majority of votes.

JPost.com staff contributed to this report.

Nasrallah: Israel would not bomb Iran without green light from US

December 4, 2013

Nasrallah: Israel would not bomb Iran without green light from US | JPost | Israel News.

By JPOST.COM STAFF

12/03/2013 22:23

Hezbollah chief says US signing of nuclear agreement with Iran signals end of American monopoly on power, likely prevents a Mideast war.

Lebanon's Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah addresses his supporters, Nov. 14 2013

Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah addresses his supporters, Nov. 14 2013 Photo: REUTERS

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah praised the nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers, saying that it had prevented a potential war in the region.

“The number one winner in this deal is the people of this region … I can not say that this agreement has annulled the choice of war permanently but I can say it has pushed it away for a long time.”

Speaking in an interview with Lebanon’s OTV on Tuesday, Nasrallah said that Israel would not possibly bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities without receiving a green light from the US.

He stated that US Secretary of State John Kerry had made it clear that America did not want any more wars in the Middle East. He stated that the agreement signals the fact that no single nation has a monopoly on power.

“The wars they fought in Iraq have failed, in Afghanistan they reached a dead end and the wars on Lebanon and Gaza foiled the New Middle East scheme, and now they have failed in Syria,” Lebanese news portal Naharnet quoted Nasrallah as saying in the interview.

“They were not able to topple the regime in Iran, but I cannot claim that they did not succeed in shaking its economic situation,” he added.

Nasrallah claimed that the US had wished to discuss a range of issues with Iran, but Iran had insisted on focusing solely on its nuclear program.

The Hezbollah leader said that Iran was open to dialogue with Gulf states who have traditionally had an antagonistic relationship with Tehran, but Saudi Arabia was closing all diplomatic doors at the urging of the Americans, and was determined to continue the fight inside Syria “until the last bullet”.

“There is a Saudi decision to try and change the events on the ground until January 22 … they will fail,” adding that he expected fierce battles in Syria until then.

“If you monitor all the Saudi-financed media outlets, the Saudi war against Iran has never stopped. The Saudis waged wars against the Iranians in Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Gulf, Iraq and Syria, and of course through its proxies, because it does not dare to wage a direct war,” he stated.

Nasrallah lauded Iran’s standing in the region, but claimed Hezbollah was not completely subservient to Tehran.

“Right now, Iran is the most important state in the region and it is consulting with us and it sometimes endorses our viewpoint on certain issues,” he stated.

Nasrallah defended Hezbollah’s intervention in the Syrian civil war on the side of President Bashar Assad, stating that Hezbollah had reluctantly joined the fray when Lebanese residents in Syrian border towns asked for their help.

Reuters contributed to this report.