Iran Primer's Blog

U.S.: Iran Aiding Assad in Aleppo

April 12, 2013 | 1:54pm

Iran’s role in the Syrian conflict is “especially pernicious as it helps the Assad regime build sectarian militias,” U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Iran and its proxy Hezbollah “have increased their presence” particularly in Aleppo, according to Ford. But President Bashar Assad has “not been able to stop the slow progress of the armed opposition.” The following are excerpted remarks from Ford’s April 11 testimony to the Senate.

I think, more broadly, Mr. Chairman, there is a real competition under way now between extremists and moderates in Syria. And we need to weigh in on behalf of those who promote freedom and tolerance. Iran's role in the conflict is especially pernicious as it helps the Assad regime build sectarian militias and attracts Hezbollah and Iraqi militants into Syria.

I met on Tuesday with the commander of the opposition armed forces in Aleppo. He highlighted to me that he senses that, up in Aleppo the Syrian regime is slowly running out of soldiers. He said, instead, there are more regime militia fighters where there used to be soldiers. And he, too, highlighted that Iranians and Hezbollah have increased their presence on the ground with the remaining Syrian forces up in Aleppo.

Yesterday, Wednesday, Syrian political leaders meeting with Secretary Kerry also highlighted this Iranian presence. And they, too, highlighted the role of Hezbollah fighters in different cities now in Syria. They also talked about Iraqi Shia fighters from the Abu Abbas brigade. And we know that brigade from our time in Iraq back in 2004.

Let me underline here that, while the Iranians and their friend are helping the Syrian regime, they have not been able to stop the slow progress of the armed opposition. They have slowed it in some places, as in up in Aleppo but they haven't stopped in. But their presence does aggravate the sectarian nature of the conflict now…

Click here for a further excerpt of Ford’s testimony on Syria.

Tags: Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, Rebels, Syria

New U.S. Sanctions on Banks, Oil

April 11, 2013 | 1:59pm

On April 11, the U.S. Treasury sanctioned an Iranian businessman, a Malaysian bank and an international network of front companies that moved billions of dollars to a Revolutionary Guards company. “As international sanctions have become increasingly stifling, Iran has resorted to criminal money laundering techniques, moving its oil and money under false names and pretenses,” said Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen. The following are excerpts from the press release, with a link to the full text at the end.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury today designated Babak Zanjani, an Iranian businessman, along with a Malaysian bank and an international network of front companies for moving billions of dollars on behalf of the Iranian regime, including tens of millions of dollars to an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) company. Today’s actions were taken pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13382, which targets proliferators of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their supporters.

“As international sanctions have become increasingly stifling, Iran has resorted to criminal money laundering techniques, moving its oil and money under false names and pretenses,” said Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen. “Whether through Babak Zanjani, Dimitri Cambis, or tomorrow’s chosen accomplice, we will be relentless in exposing and thwarting Iran’s attempts to evade international sanctions and abuse the global financial system.”

Treasury today also designated the Swiss-based Iranian oil trading company, Naftiran Intertrade Company Ltd. (NICO), for being owned or controlled by the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). NIOC has been designated pursuant to E.O. 13382 and identified as an agent or affiliate of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is itself designated under E.O. 13382.

The designation of NICO, as well as Babak Zanjani and his affiliated entities, under E.O. 13382 generally prohibits transactions between the designees and any U.S. person, and freezes any assets they may currently have or that come under U.S. jurisdiction. Additionally, today’s designations under E.O. 13382 carry consequences under the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA). Foreign financial institutions that knowingly facilitate significant transactions or provide significant financial services for these sanctioned entities or individual are exposed to potential loss of access to the U.S. financial system.

Click here for the full text.

Tags: Banks, Iran, Oil, Sanctions, U.S. Policy, United States

G8 Statement on Iran

April 11, 2013 | 1:54pm

On April 11, the G8 urged Iran to cooperate with the United Nations on its nuclear program to avoid further isolation. Ministers from the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom warned that “talks cannot continue indefinitely.” They also called on Tehran to uphold human rights and to distance itself from all acts of terrorism. The following is an excerpt from the London meeting statement, with a link to the full text at the end.

G8 Foreign Ministers expressed their deep concern regarding Iran’s continuing nuclear and ballistic missile activities in violation of numerous UN Security Council and IAEA Board of Governors resolutions.

Following the 5-6 April substantive round of negotiations in Almaty, Kazakhstan with Iran and the E3+3 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union High Representative), the Ministers reaffirmed their desire for a peaceful and negotiated resolution to the nuclear issue, noting that talks cannot continue indefinitely. They noted that the positions of the E3+3 and Iran remain far apart and called on Iran to engage urgently, actively and constructively in the diplomatic process with the E3+3, and to cooperate with the IAEA to resolve the serious concerns of the international community and to demonstrate that its nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful. Ministers further reaffirmed that, in line with the United Nations Security Council’s approved dual track approach, Iran has the ability to avoid further isolation and improve its situation only if it promptly addresses the concerns of the international community.

Ministers urged Iran to comply with international obligations to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, and end interference with the media, arbitrary executions, torture and other restrictions placed on rights and freedoms. They further urged Iran to cooperate constructively with all relevant UN human rights mechanisms. A visit by the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran would be a step in this direction.

Ministers also urged Iran to play a more constructive role in supporting regional security and to distance itself from all acts of terrorism and terrorist groups.

Click here for the full text.

Tags: G8, Human Rights, Iran, Nuclear, Russia, Sanctions, Terrorism, United Nations, United States

Where Does Nuclear Diplomacy Stand Now?

April 9, 2013 | 2:59pm

Interview with Michael Adler by Garrett Nada

What was the outcome of the talks in Kazakhstan and why?

The talks were basically a failure because the six world powers did not receive an answer to the proposal they made to Iran in February. In those talks, also in Kazakhstan, the United States, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom ― the so-called P5+1 ― had presented a compromise formula to move negotiations forward. It included:

•Iran would suspend all 20 percent enrichment of uranium, including enrichment at the Fordo facility near the northern city of Qom. Fordo is a heavily reinforced site that could be impregnable to air attack.

•The international community would lift some punitive restrictions, allowing Tehran to trade gold and other currencies, which would help Iran get around sanctions on its banking sector.

But at the April 5-6 talks, Iran instead countered with an offer based on a proposal it had put forward in Moscow last June. The specific new plan was not released but Tehran’s proposal in June included:

•Stage 1: The P5+1 would recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium. In return, Iran would

emphasize its commitments under the Non-proliferation Treaty and its opposition to nuclear

weapons.

•Stage 2: The P5+1 would lift unilateral and multilateral sanctions on Iran outside of U.N.

Security Council resolutions. In return, Iran would continue to cooperate with the U.N.

nuclear watchdog and answer questions about possible military dimensions of its program.

•Stage 3: U.N. sanctions would be lifted, and Iran’s nuclear file would be removed from the

Security Council’s agenda. In return, Iran would cooperate with the P5+1 to provide

enriched fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor.

•Stage 4: The parties would cooperate in designing and building nuclear power plants and

light water research reactors in Iran.

•Stage 5: The parties would start cooperating on regional issues that could include Syria,

narcotics and piracy.

How was this new round different from the earlier rounds of diplomacy?

The first day of the talks on April 5 was a disaster. Iran presented its own offer instead of a response to the February proposal. It basically reiterated its offer from the Moscow talks in June 2012. But the P5+1 powers had already rejected that 2012 proposal. A senior U.S. diplomat said that Iran was maximizing demands and only proposing minimal action on its part.

The second day of negotiations was not much more productive. Diplomats discussed the same issues, although some said Iran engaged in discussions more seriously than in the past. Instead of repeating rhetoric or prepared speeches, Iranian negotiators reportedly spoke about specific items during question-and-answer sessions. Some diplomats felt this directness was new and even a sign of serious engagement, although they may have been grasping at straws to find a productive outcome.

What does the outcome mean?

The outcome means that the process is likely to continue. Negotiations are by nature slow, tortuous and full of setbacks, a U.S. official said. “There may not have been a breakthrough, but there also was not a breakdown,” the official said.

What happens next? What are the prospects for another round of talks?

No date has been set for another round of talks. But a diplomat close to the negotiations said that another session may happen soon. On the other hand, most analysts do not expect to see progress until after Iran’s June presidential election.

What are the major gaps in the two sides’ positions?

The gap between the two sides is philosophical as well as substantial. The major gap is on the issue of suspension of uranium enrichment, which has always been the key goal of P5+1 countries. The world’s six major powers want Iran to suspend 20 percent enrichment as a confidence-building gesture to clear the way for more substantial negotiations on long-term issues―namely concern about enrichment and possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.

From the beginning, Iran has demanded that the international community recognize its right to enrichment, which already provides fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor and could provide fuel if Iran were to build a bomb. Tehran also does not want to be singled out or placed under any special scrutiny by the U.N. nuclear watchdog or the U.N. Security Council.

The priorities of the international community and Iran have barely changed over the last decade. The important difference is that Iran was originally enriching to 3.5 percent. Since 2010, it has been enriching to 20 percent. This causes added concern since weapon-grade uranium, enriched to more than 90 percent, is easier to produce from 20 percent enriched uranium than from 3.5 percent enriched uranium.

Michael Adler, a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, formerly covered the International Atomic Energy Agency for Agence France-Presse.

Read Michael Adler's chapter on Iran and the IAEA in “The Iran Primer”

Photo credit: Saeed Jalili (Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator) by Parmida76 on Flickr

Online news media are welcome to republish original blog postings from this website in full, with a citation and link back to The Iran Primer website (www.iranprimer.com) as the original source. Any edits must be authorized by the author. Permission to reprint excerpts from The Iran Primer book should be directed to permissions@usip.org

Tags: European Union, Iran, Negotiations, Nuclear, P5 1, United States, Uranium Enrichment

U.S. Offers Earthquake Aid to Iran

April 9, 2013 | 2:56pm

On April 10, the United States offered aid to Iran one day after a 6.1 magnitude earthquake hit the country’s south. The quake hit within 60 miles of Bushehr, a town on the Persian Gulf coast that is home to Iran’s nuclear power plant. Iranian officials claimed that the plant was not damaged. Bushehr’s provincial governor told state television that at least 37 people had died, and 850 were injured. The following is the full text of the statement by National Security Council Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden, and a remark by State Department Acting Deputy Spokesperson Patrick Ventrell.

April 10 Statement by NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden

The American people extend condolences to the people of Iran for the devastation that resulted from the recent earthquake and aftershocks in southern Iran, particularly to those whose loved ones were injured or lost their lives. We are deeply saddened by the loss of life and the destruction that’s been caused by this disaster, and stand ready to help the Iranian people in this time of need.

April 9 Remark by Patrick Ventrell at the Daily State Department Press Briefing

We have seen the reports of an earthquake and are monitoring the situation. We understand this was near Bushehr. We refer you to the IAEA for further comment. I think they put out a statement already, given that there was – part of Iran’s nuclear program is near there. But our understanding is that – we do send our condolences to those who lost loved ones, and we understand there are some casualties.

Tags: Aid, Bushehr, Earthquake, Iran, Nuclear, U.S. Policy, United States

The Islamists Are Coming

The Islamists Are Coming, edited by Robin Wright, surveys the rise of Islamist groups in the wake of the Arab Spring. Often lumped together, the more than 50 Islamist parties with millions of followers now constitute a whole new spectrum—separate from either militants or secular parties. They will shape the new order in the world’s most volatile region more than any other political bloc. Yet they have diverse goals and different constituencies. Sometimes they are even rivals.

United States Institute of Peace

The Iran Primer