May, 24 2022, 03:46pm EDT
Senators Ready to Clash on Iran Negotiations in Wednesday Hearing
WASHINGTON
On Wednesday, May 25, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will host the State Department's leading Iran negotiator, Robert Malley. The hearing comes at an extremely serious moment: Iran is on the brink of becoming a nuclear threshold state; yet the hearing may be profoundly unserious, offering political opponents of the negotiations an opportunity to score political points and further undermine ongoing diplomatic efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. We encourage editorial boards and journalists to provide serious coverage of the current stakes of the Iran nuclear crisis and cut through the political circus being constructed by organizations and lawmakers dedicated to opposing U.S. diplomacy with Iran.
While some members of the committee may be preparing to score political points or get their "gotcha" moment to brandish their Iran hawk or pro-Israel credentials, in the real world we are on a proliferation precipice: since the Trump Administration's decision to abandon the JCPOA, Iran has gradually ratcheted up its nuclear work and is now on the precipice of becoming a nuclear threshold state. Nonproliferation experts have warned that Iran's nuclear breakout - the time it would take to secure sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon, if Iran chose to do so - is now just two weeks and dropping. This means that Iran could soon have an undetectable breakout capability.
Proponents of diplomacy argue that the restoration of the 2015 accord that the Trump administration violated, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, is vital to extending that window and avoiding the worst case scenario of Iran as a threshold nuclear power or a military campaign to set back Iran's program that could invite a host of disastrous consequences. Opponents, however, argue against an agreement but have not offered any viable diplomatic solutions to the issue at hand - namely, what can the U.S. do without an agreement and short of a bombing campaign that would prevent Iran from reaching this nuclear milestone?
Unfortunately, observers looking to this Senate committee hearing hoping for a substantive update or debate are likely to be disappointed as the hearing may shape up to be highly-scripted political theater - as opponents of diplomatic efforts regarding Iran seek to politicize the debate and double down on personal attacks and insinuations against Malley and the Biden Administration. The appearance of the leading U.S. official in the midst of sensitive negotiations is significant, and opponents of the efforts will likely utilize the opportunity to make life even more difficult for U.S. diplomats. One of the two witnesses invited to testify in the second part of the hearing, Foundation for Defense of Democracy's Mark Dubowitz, has himself engaged in personal attacks and trolling against Malley, and was the most prominent advocate for sanctions during the Trump Administration that were designed to impede a Democratic Administration from restoring an Iran nuclear deal.
The leadership of the committee is also not representative of the views of the Senate or the American public. Americans broadly support a restoration of the nuclear agreement. The issue is highly partisan, with all but a handful of Republican legislators opposed in lockstep to the accord and all but a handful of Democrats supportive of efforts to restore the agreement. Yet the Democratic chairman of the Committee, Robert Menendez, is a stalwart Iran hawk who clashed publicly with Obama administration officials, including Antony Blinken, and is playing a similar role under Biden.
Below are key details to keep in mind in advance of this pivotal hearing:
Nonproliferation Benefits:
Under a renewal of the JCPOA, the advancements in Iran's nuclear program would be rolled back. Under these strong nonproliferation benefits, Iran would be unable to procure a nuclear weapon for the foreseeable future. If a deal is finalized, we will see the following immediate nonproliferation benefits:
As of February, Iran had more than 3,000 kilograms of enriched uranium and currently has approximately 42 kg enriched to the 60% U-235 threshold.
- Under the JCPOA, Iran reduces its enriched uranium stockpile to 300 kg or less, a fraction of the amount needed for a single nuclear weapon with further enrichment. This restriction would remain through 2030 even if no new agreement is reached;
- Iran ships out or downblends its 20% and 60% enriched uranium stockpile and limits enrichment to 3.67%, far below weapons grade, through 2030;
Iran is presently enriching with advanced centrifuges at the deeply-buried Fordow facility.
- Iran would halt all uranium enrichment at Fordow and engage in no proliferation-sensitive work at the facility through 2030;
Iran has significantly expanded its work with advanced centrifuges and uranium metal.
- Under the JCPOA, Iran would remove excess advanced centrifuges and place them in monitored storage, ensuring that only IR-1 centrifuges are used to accumulate enriched uranium through at least 2025;
- Iran would halt work on uranium metal through 2030, and ship out any uranium metal it has produced;
IAEA Inspectors have limited access to Iran's enrichment facilities and other nuclear facilities without the implementation of the Additional Protocol.
- Iran will resume compliance with the IAEA Additional Protocol, ensuring Iran's entire nuclear fuel cycle will be closely monitored and the IAEA has enhanced powers to detect any potential covert cheating;
Iran's breakout - the time it would take for Iran to produce sufficient fissile material for a single nuclear weapon - is down to days.
- Iran's breakout time would once again be measured in months instead of days and could approach the 12+ month timeline established by the JCPOA in 2016.
>> Critically, there is no viable diplomatic alternative that could establish a similar level of nonproliferation protections. Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would not erase Iran's nuclear knowledge and would only incentivize Iran to build back deeper and without international inspectors, ensuring Iran would eventually weaponize.
What's The Final Hurdle?
Enrique Mora, Deputy Secretary General of the European External Action Service, has traveled to Iran twice since March in an effort to resolve what may be the last remaining hurdle in restoring the JCPOA: the Trump administration's unprecedented designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) - a major branch of the armed forces in Iran - as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). Iran is adamant that the unprecedented designation be removed as part of a return to the JCPOA, while the Biden administration appears to have ruled this out and insisted on separate concessions outside of the nuclear file in return.
- Mark Dubowitz, a witness in Panel II, responded to Democratic pledges to return to the JCPOA in April 2019 by urging Trump to implement a "wall of additional sanctions that a [Democratic] successor could not easily dismantle." Among the many suggestions was a call to designate the IRGC as an FTO, suggesting that "international companies would stay out of Iran" as long as it is in place. Trump followed suit days later.
- The designation of the IRGC as an FTO helped to push Iran out of compliance with the JCPOA and triggered a dramatic deterioration in regional security, as many observers foresaw at the time.
- As State Department spokesperson Ned Price stated, "From 2012 to 2018, there were no significant attacks, there were no attacks against U.S. service members, diplomatic facilities in Iraq. That changed in 2018. And between 2019 and 2020, the number of attacks from Iran-backed groups went up 400 percent. This was in the aftermath of the decision to abandon the JCPOA. It was in the aftermath of the decision to apply the FTO designation to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. It was in the aftermath of the killing of Soleimani, the IRGC chief."
- The IRGC has been one of the world's most sanctioned entities, which has not changed regardless of the status of the JCPOA. Even if the FTO designation is removed in the weeks ahead, the IRGC would remain one of the most sanctioned entities on planet Earth due to multiple overlapping sanctions, and will remain radioactive to outside business.
- While the FTO designation has imposed significant costs on U.S. interests, it is almost completely duplicative of existing U.S. sanctions authorities against the IRGC. As Sec. Blinken stated, "as a practical matter, the designation does not really gain you much because there are a myriad of other sanctions on the IRGC. The primary sanction when it comes to the FTO designation actually is a travel ban and the people affected by that ban when it comes to the IRGC - as you know the IRGC is a large force that has a lot of conscripts in it. They would not be able to travel, the people that are the real bad guys have no intentions of traveling here anyway."
- From Iran's perspective, it has already compromised on some of its preferences, including not demanding compensation for the U.S. withdrawal or guarantees the deal would be implemented by the U.S. beyond 2024. Particularly given the perceived trail from FTO designation to the assassination of IRGC general Qassem Soleimani, it has become exceedingly difficult for Iran to relent on the FTO dispute.
The bottom line: it would be disastrous for the Biden administration to allow a duplicative designation designed to tie Biden's hands to be the difference between rolling back Iran's nuclear program through diplomacy and Iran becoming a nuclear threshold state or the U.S. going to war to stop that outcome.
Failures of Maximum Pressure:
Trump's so-called "maximum pressure" policies failed across the board. Biden administration officials routinely point out as much, though they are less forthcoming about their failure to find a way off the maximum pressure track. Biden has relieved no significant sanctions, and the Iranian economy has been devastated throughout the sixteen months of Biden's time in office. Ordinary Iranians, and not the regime, pay the biggest costs when inflation hovers around 40%, pushing millions into poverty.
When Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, he promised to start "working with our allies to find a real, comprehensive, and lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat. This will include efforts to eliminate the threat of Iran's ballistic missile program, to stop its terrorist activities worldwide, and to block its menacing activity across the Middle East."
All of that was a lie.
- Rather than a real, comprehensive and lasting solution to the nuclear threat, Iran went from a full year breakout to days. Some of the knowledge Iran has gained in this time can't be unlearned.
- Iran's missile program became more advanced than ever, with Iran executing a stunning attack on Saudi facilities at Abqaiq and retaliating on U.S. bases in Iraq after the killing of Soleimani.
- Tensions throughout the Middle East soared, with threats increasing against both U.S. troops in Iraq and on oil shipping through the Persian Gulf.
Critically, maximum pressure has impoverished ordinary Iranians and helped worsen the human rights situation in the country.
- Within Iran, withdrawal from the deal gave hardliners an upper hand in wresting control of all levers of government back from moderates.
- Human rights within the country has deteriorated further, with vocal human rights champions being subjected to harsh prison sentences and many organizers focused on providing basic sustenance.
- As human rights defender Narges Mohammadi stated this year prior to the start of a new, unjust prison term for her political activities, "Economic sanctions, because they weren't targeted or based on adequate knowledge of the state, weakened Iranians economically more than they weakened the Iranian regime...In fact, they strengthened the Iranian regime, and hard-line individuals and groups in the country, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This did not benefit democracy in Iran."
What's the alternative to the JCPOA?
Biden has been right to try to restore the JCPOA, though he has lacked the political will that has been necessary to reach the finish line. Regrettably, this means that the likelihood of reaching a no deal scenario has increased dramatically. If this occurs, Biden is likely to be left with two disastrous options: Iran on the threshold of a nuclear weapon or war to try to prevent that outcome from happening.
The architects of maximum pressure have been clear what they think Biden should do. Even when negotiations show promise, there is hardly a month that goes by without major calls to bomb Iran.
- This includes Mark Dubowitz and Mathew Kroenig, who in January published a piece saying that when nuclear negotiations fail, "the president should order military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent Tehran from building the bomb."
- War hawks consistently downplay the costs of war and play up the potential gains - this was the case in the drumbeat to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and is the same for advocates of war with Iran.
- War with Iran would not be the cakewalk many portray. Iran has prepared for such a conflict for years and has numerous capabilities, including missiles and proxies, that could quickly turn a conflict over Iran's nuclear program into a messy regional war.
- If such a war were to come under the Biden administration, with oil markets tight and Russia's invasion of Ukraine still ongoing, it would be a huge disaster, militarily, strategically and economically. A diplomatic solution is still by far the best option for the U.S. and Iran. Biden must see it through.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization founded in 2002 to give voice to the Iranian-American community. From being the trusted voice on U.S.- Iran relations, to pushing forth legislation that protects individuals of Iranian heritage from systematic discrimination, to celebrating our cultural heritage, NIAC creates a lasting impact in the lives of the members of our community.
(202) 386-6325LATEST NEWS
Russia's Putin Secures Another Term
The controversial leader won a record number of votes for a post-Soviet candidate even as opponents organized a protest at noon on the election's third and last day.
Mar 17, 2024
Despite protests on Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin won reelection with more votes than any candidate since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Exit poll the Public Opinion Foundation (POF) put the final tally after three days of voting at 87.8%, the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) at 87%, and Russia's Central Election Commission (CEC) at 87.3%. Putin will now serve another six-year term, meaning he will have been at the helm of the Russian state for longer than any leader since Catherine the Great, surpassing Josef Stalin.
The election comes less than a month after the second anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and is likely to lead to more tensions between the Russian and U.S. governments.
"It gives me some hope to see how many people are not happy with the dictatorship, the war, with what's happening in Russia."
"For a U.S. administration that hoped Putin's Ukraine adventure would be wrapped up by now with a decisive setback to Moscow's interests, the election is a reminder that Putin expects that there will be many more rounds in the geopolitical boxing ring," Nikolas Gvosdev, director of the National Security Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, told the Russia Matters project.
With most of Putin's prominent opponents either dead, imprisoned, or in exile, the elections results were considered a foregone conclusion by both friends and foes of his administration.
A Putin spokesperson said in 2023 that the election was "not really democracy" but instead "costly bureaucracy," according to CNN. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council said the election was "obviously not free nor fair."
However, Russian opponents of Putin did find a way to demonstrate their position with a protest called "Noon Against Putin." The protest was called for by St. Petersburg politician Maxim Reznik, according to The Guardian. Participants were instructed to head to a polling place at noon and cast a paper ballot for one of the candidates running against Putin, or to write-in another candidate or spoil their ballot.
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny had endorsed the protest before his death last month in a Russian prison, leading the Independent Novaya Gazeta newspaper to dub it "Navalny's political testament."
The action drew crowds to polling places both in Russian cities like Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg and at Russian embassies around the world.
"This is the first time in my life I have ever seen a queue for elections," one woman waiting in line in Moscow told
CNN. Russian journalists reported that the lines at some stations within the country reached the thousands, according to Reuters.
Navalny's widow, Yulia Navalnaya, who had also endorsed the protest, voted at the embassy in Berlin, while several protesters gathered outside the embassy in London.
"I expected there to be a lot of people, but not this many," London-based participant Maria Dorofeyeva told The Guardian, adding, "It gives me some hope to see how many people are not happy with the dictatorship, the war, with what's happening in Russia. And we want to stop it."
Ruslan Shaveddinov of Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation told Reuters:
"We showed ourselves, all of Russia and the whole world that Putin is not Russia (and) that Putin has seized power in Russia."
"Our victory is that we, the people, defeated fear, we defeated solitude—many people saw they were not alone," Shaveddinov said
Keep ReadingShow Less
Van Hollen Says Netanyahu Spreading 'Flat Out Lies' About UNRWA
The Maryland senator defended the organization on CBS and said there was no evidence that it was a "proxy for Hamas."
Mar 17, 2024
U.S. Senator for Maryland Chris Van Hollen continued his defense of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and its work in Gaza in an appearance on CBS News' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
"The claim that Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and others are making that somehow UNRWA is a proxy for Hamas are just flat out lies, that's a flat out lie," he told journalist Margaret Brennan.
The U.S. was one of many Western countries that paused funding for UNRWA after the agency announced in January that it had fired 12 staffers over Israeli allegations that they had been involved in Hamas' October 7 attack on Israel. However, some countries including Canada, Sweden, the European Union, and Australia have since restored funding. A report has also emerged that Israel tortured UNRWA staffers into falsely confessing to involvement in the Hamas attack.
"Netanyahu has wanted to get rid of UNRWA because he had seen them as a means to continue the hopes of the Palestinian people for a homeland of their own."
Van Hollen's remarks on Sunday come days after he argued for the restoration of UNRWA funds on the floor of the U.S. Senate and criticized Republican legislators who wanted to permanently end funds for the organization that supports some 6 million Palestinian refugees in countries across the Middle East, including around 2 million in Gaza.
During his speech, he pointed out that the Netanyahu government had not shared the underlying evidence that UNRWA staffers participated in October 7 with either UNRWA itself or the U.S. government. He also urged his colleagues to read a classified Director of National Intelligence report on Netanyahu's claims of UNRWA complicity with Hamas.
On "Face the Nation," Van Hollen said that the person in charge of operations on the ground in UNRWA was a 20-year U.S. Army veteran.
"You can be sure he is not in cahoots with Hamas," the senator told Brennan.
He also repeated claims that Netanyahu has wanted to eliminate UNRWA entirely since at least 2017.
"Netanyahu has wanted to get rid of UNRWA because he had seen them as a means to continue the hopes of the Palestinian people for a homeland of their own," Van Hollen said, adding that the right-wing Israeli leader's "primary objective" was preventing the formation of a Palestinian state.
However, the dismantling of UNRWA would be especially catastrophic amid Israel's ongoing bombardment and invasion of Gaza, which has killed more than 31,000 people and put the survivors at risk of famine. No other organization has the infrastructure in place to distribute the necessary aid.
"If you cut off funding for UNRWA in Gaza entirely, it means more people will starve, more people won't get the medial assistance they need, and so it would be a huge mistake," Van Hollen said.
He also said that only 14 of the agency's 13,000-strong staff in Gaza had been accused of participating in the October 7 attack.
"We should investigate it, we should hold all those people accountable, but for goodness' sake, let's not hold 2 million innocent Palestinian civilians who are dying of starvation... accountable for the bad acts of 14 people."
Van Hollen also repeated his call for President Joe Biden to condition the sale of offensive military weapons to Israel on the country obeying international law and allowing aid into Gaza. While Israel sent the U.S. a letter saying it was in compliance with the law, "the day it was signed, clearly the Netanyahu government is not in compliance, because we see that they're continuing to restrict humanitarian assistance," he told Brennan.
Also on "Face the Nation" Sunday, United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) Chief Executive Catherine Russell described the impact that a lack of aid was having on the children of Gaza.
"We know now that children are dying of malnutrition in Gaza," she told Brennan.
Russell said that not enough aid was reaching those who needed it, calling both air drops and sea deliveries "a drop in the bucket."
She also called for greater transparency into what was actually happening in Gaza and the difficulties of delivering aid.
"The world should be able to see what's happening and make their own judgments about what's going on," Russell said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gore Calls Out Fossil Fuel Industry 'Shamelessness' in Lying to Public
"They are continuing to do similar things today to try to fool people and pull the wool over people's eyes just in the name of greed," the former vice president said.
Mar 17, 2024
In reflecting on nearly 50 years of climate advocacy, former Vice President Al Gore said that he had "underestimated" the greed of the fossil fuel industry.
The remarks came in an interview published in USA Today on Sunday. When asked if he had any regrets, Gore responded that he had "put every ounce of energy" he had into climate advocacy, but added:
"I was pretty slow to recognize how important the massive funding of anti-climate messaging was going on. I underestimated the power of greed in the fossil fuel industry, the shamelessness in putting out the lies."
"They are continuing to do similar things today to try to fool people and pull the wool over people's eyes just in the name of greed," Gore continued.
"What's at stake is so incredible."
Gore, who tried to raise awareness about the climate crisis in the U.S. House of Representatives as early as 1981 and brought the issue to national attention in 2006's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, has taken a harsher tone against oil, gas, and coal companies in recent months. In August 2023, he said that the "climate crisis is a fossil fuel crisis," and in September, he implored the industry to "get out of the way." In December, he lamented that the industry had "captured the COP process," referring to the appointment of the United Arab Emirates national oil company CEO Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber to preside over the United Nations' COP28 climate conference in that country.
In the USA Today interview, Gore also named the fossil fuel industry when asked about his greatest frustration.
"Well, that we haven't made more progress," Gore answered, "and that some of the fossil fuel companies have been shameless in providing, continuing to provide lavish funding for disinformation and misinformation."
"What's at stake is so incredible," he added.
However, Gore told USA Today that he tried not to focus on his anger, but instead on continuing to raise awareness about the crisis and what can be done about it. And he remained hopeful that his grandchildren would live in a world in which people had come together and acted in time.
"We've got all the solutions we need right now to cut emissions in half before the end of this decade," he said. "We've got a clear line of sight to how we can cut the other 50% of emissions by mid century."
He also encouraged more people to get involved with the climate movement.
"I would say the greatest need is for more grassroots advocates because the most persuasive advocates are those in your own community," he said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular