Russia Jordan relations,Iran:U.S. Senate diplomatic insurance

Excerpts: Russia Jordan relations,Iran:U.S. Senate diplomatic insurance =

policy.Iranian Gachin uranium mine 17 January 2014

+++SOURCE: Jordan Times 17 Jan.=9214:=94Russia keen on military, energy =

cooperation with Jordan=94 ,by Petra
SUBJECT: Russia/Jordan relations
QUOTE:=92Russia looks to implement joint ventures with Jordan in the area o=
f =

technical military cooperation and energy=94
FULL TEXT: MOSCOW =97 Jordan=92s Ambassador to Russia Ziad Majali on Thursd=
ay[16 =

Jan.] presented his credentials to Russian President Vladimir Putin.16 Jan.]

During the ceremony, Putin noted that Russia looks to implement joint =

ventures with Jordan in the area of technical military cooperation and =

energy, saying that his country maintains =93intensive=94 communications wi=
th =

His Majesty King Abdullah to this effect.

The Russian president also stressed his country=92s willingness to exert al=
l =

its efforts to ensure the success of the peace conference on Syria, slated =

to be held on January 22 in Switzerland

+++SOURCE: New York Times 17 Jan.=9214:=94A Bill Stokes Debate, and Doubt, =
on =

Iran Deal=94, by Mark Landler
SUBJECT: re Iran :U.S. Senate =91diplomatic insurance policy=92
QUOTE:=94The White House condemns it as a deal-killer=94
FULL TEXT:WASHINGTON =97 Its Senate sponsors describe it as a =93diplomatic =

insurance policy=94 that will help President Obama cut a better nuclear dea=
l =

with Iran. The White House condemns it as a deal-killer that could put the =

United States on a path to war.

At issue is a 52-page Senate bill, the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013=
, =

which has become enshrouded in a fog of overheated talk, as the White House=
, =

Congress and a growing legion of lobbyists clash over the wisdom of passing =

new sanctions against Iran while pursuing diplomacy.

On a basic level, of course, the question of whether sanctions would cause =

Iran to leave the bargaining table cannot be answered in Washington. That =

decision is up to the Iranians, who have talked tough about sanctions but =

have plenty of reasons not to walk away.

But where the legislation may have an effect, and why it so worries the =

White House, is that it lays down the contours of an acceptable final =

nuclear deal. Since administration officials insist that many of those =

conditions are unrealistic, it basically sets Mr. Obama up for failure.

On Thursday[16 Jan.], under pressure, the White House released technical =

details of how it is carrying out an interim deal with Iran. The document =

contained few surprises, though it raised enough questions =97 from the nat=
ure =

of Iran=92s centrifuge research to the size of its stockpile of low-enriche=
d =

uranium =97 that it is likely to feed the doubts of skeptics.

Those doubts run through the Senate bill, which would require Mr. Obama to =

certify, every 30 days, that a host of conditions have been met in order to =

defer the new sanctions.

White House officials zeroed in on three of the conditions: first, that any =

deal would dismantle Iran=92s =93illicit nuclear infrastructure=94; second,=
that =

Iran =93has not directly, or through a proxy, supported, financed, planned =
or =

otherwise carried out an act of terrorism against the United States=94; and =

third, that Iran has not tested any but the shortest-range ballistic =

missiles.

=93They=92re basically arguing for a zero enrichment capacity, with a compl=
ete =

dismantling of Iran=92s nuclear facilities,=94 said Daryl G. Kimball, execu=
tive =

director of the Arms Control Association. =93That=92s not attainable, and i=
t=92s =

not necessary to prevent Iran from getting a weapon.=94

The Joint Plan of Action that Iran signed in November with the United State=
s =

and its partners foresees a final deal that would allow Iran a =93mutually =

defined enrichment program with mutually defined parameters=94 =97 enough =

centrifuges, in other words, to enrich uranium to a level adequate to fuel =
a =

civilian nuclear reactor.

Proponents of the bill deny it would deprive Iran of the right to modest =

enrichment. They point to the qualifier =93illicit=94 in the reference to =

nuclear facilities that must be dismantled, and they say the language on =

enrichment is intentionally vague to mollify both Republicans, who are =

reluctant to grant Iran the right to operate even a single centrifuge, and =

Democrats, who balked at signing on to a bill that would rule out all =

enrichment.

=93There=92s no language that says a centrifuge is prohibited or allowed,=
=94 said =

David Albright, an expert on Iran=92s nuclear program at the Institute for =

Science and International Security, who helped Republicans and Democrats =

draft some of the technical wording.

The ambiguity, he said, reflected the fact that the lawmakers who sponsored =

the bill are =93doing it in a bipartisan way, but they have disagreements o=
n =

what the end state should look like.=94

Mr. Albright, however, said the provision on ballistic missile testing coul=
d =

pose a problem. Proponents say it merely echoes prohibitions on such tests =

that are in United Nations Security Council resolutions =97 resolutions tha=
t =

Iran must confront in the next round of talks. But Iran=92s missile program =

was not part of the interim deal, and introducing it now, Mr. Albright said=
, =

would inject a combustible element into an already fraught negotiation.

The requirement that Iran not engage in terrorism against Americans seems =

self-evident: The United States is not about to make a deal with a country =

that attacks its citizens. But the language is vague on the time frame =97 =

Iran was certainly guilty of terrorism against Americans in the past =97 an=
d =

broad in its scope, including Iranian proxies like Hezbollah.

As if to illustrate the problem, Iran=92s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad =

Zarif, placed a wreath this week at the grave of a Hezbollah commander, Ima=
d =

Mughniyeh, who was accused of being a mastermind of the 1983 bombing of the =

Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. Any future attack by Hezbollah =

would be grounds to cut off diplomacy with Iran.

Proponents say the bill would give Mr. Obama leeway to waive the sanctions, =

not just for the first six months of the negotiations but for two additiona=
l =

months. Administration officials counter that the sanctions would still kic=
k =

in legally =97 a violation, at least in spirit, of the agreement.

White House officials also shake their heads at a provision that would =

commit the United States to support Israel, militarily if necessary, if it =

decided to strike Iran=92s nuclear facilities in =93legitimate self-defense=
.=94 =

Defenders of the bill say the provision is nonbinding and merely repeats an =

expression of solidarity with Israel that passed the Senate last year.

Mr. Albright said he believed that the Senate and White House could still =

negotiate a final version of the bill that would allay the administration=
=92s =

concerns. But the White House seems uninterested, calculating perhaps that =

the bill=92s sponsors were losing momentum in attracting enough Democrats t=
o =

give the legislation a veto-proof majority.

For diplomats, that would be just as well. R. Nicholas Burns, a former Stat=
e =

Department official who oversaw Iran policy during the George W. Bush =

administration, said that while the bill might not torpedo the negotiations=
, =

=93it might give Iran an excuse to leave the table.=94

=93The idea that the Senate would intervene in the middle of a negotiation =
to =

alter the outcome of the negotiation is just not sensible,=94 said Mr. Burn=
s, =

who now teaches at Harvard. =93We can only have one president negotiating w=
ith =

Iran, not 525 presidents negotiating.=94

+++SOURCE:=94Naharnet (Lebanon) 17 Jan.=9214:=94Iran Says U.N. Experts to I=
nspect =

Gachin Mine This Month=94, Agence France Presse
SUBJECT: Iran=92s Gachin uranium mine
QUOTE:=94U.N. nuclear experts will inspect its ((Iran=92s)Gachin uranium mi=
ne =

this month, almost nine years since they last visited=94
FULL TEXT:Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation said on Friday[17 Jan.] that =

U.N. nuclear experts will inspect its Gachin uranium mine this month, almos=
t =

nine years since they last visited the site.

“The inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency will travel to =

Tehran on January 29 to visit Gachin mine,” AEO spokesman Behrouz Kamalvand=
i =

said, quoted by the official IRNA news agency.

Iran and the IAEA agreed a framework deal in November that includes six =

steps Tehran must carry out by February 11.

“The agenda for negotiations between Iran and the IAEA which will take plac=
e =

on February 8 on how to implement the second phase is not clear yet”, said =

Kamalvandi.

As part of the first phase of the deal, U.N. experts visited the heavy wate=
r =

plant at the unfinished Arak reactor on December 8, when all of the IAEA’s =

“technical objectives” were met, said the Vienna-based agency.

At least a year from completion, the Arak reactor is a major source of =

concern for Western powers, who fear the plutonium it will produce as a =

by-product could provide Iran with a second route to an atomic bomb.

The November deal also allows U.N. experts to visit the Gachin uranium mine =

in southern Iran — which has been off-limits to IAEA inspections since =

2005.

Other requirements include hammering out a clear framework on cooperation, =

providing information on future research reactors, identifying newly =

designated nuclear power plants, and clarifying statements on additional =

enrichment facilities and laser enrichment technology.

The IAEA talks are running parallel to those with the so-called P5+1 — U.N=
. =

Security Council permanent members Britain, China, France, Russia and the =

United States plus Germany.

They are aimed at increasing transparency on Iran’s ongoing nuclear =

activities and shedding light on past efforts in its alleged weaponisation =

programme.

Under a deal Iran reached with the P5+1 in November, it agreed to curb part=
s =

of its nuclear drive for six months in exchange for modest relief from =

sanctions and a promise by Western powers not to impose new measures agains=
t =

its hard-hit economy.

Western powers and Israel suspect Iran’s nuclear program is masking militar=
y =

objectives. Tehran has repeatedly denied that charge, countering that the =

Islamic republic only seeks peaceful applications of the technology.

SourceAgence France Presse
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Sue Lerner – Associate, IMRA =

________________________________________
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

For free regular subscription:
Subscribe at no charge: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]

For free daily digest subscription:
Subscribe at no charge: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]

IMRA is now also on Twitter

http://twitter.com/IMRA_UPDATES