Friday, November 11, 2011
Studying the report, says U.S.
From The Hindu
The United States has issued a guarded response to the International Atomic Energy Agency's report on nuclear weapons capability development by Iran, declining to comment specifically on the possibility of more sanctions or military action against the Ahmadinejad administration.
Responding to queries at a media briefing State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland said that the U.S. would “study” the report between now at November 18, when a scheduled meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors will occur. “Iran will be an agenda item at that meeting,” she added.
When asked whether the IAEA's report might lack credibility given past assertions that the organisation made about the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, Ms. Nuland said, “The IAEA is one of the most credible, thorough, important UN organizations out there.”
Noting that the report was attributed to the Director General of the IAEA, she said, “It is based on inputs from the IAEA's own cadre of inspectors and analysts as well as inputs from some ten or fifteen member states. So we would, obviously, reject that assertion.”
The White House similarly did not outline any concrete response to the report at this time, with Spokesperson Jay Carney only noting the significance of this particular report that IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano signalled a week ago. Mr. Amano had indicated that the latest report” would include aspects that were not covered in the September report, for example... [such as include more information about the military aspect of [Iran's nuclear] programme.”
He however did suggest that the Obama administration would persist with its dual track approach towards Iran, which entails sanctions as well as negotiations. “We continue to focus on a diplomatic channel,” Mr. Carney said at a briefing following the report's release. He added that consensus at the international level among the U.S.' allies has made it possible to “continue to isolate and put pressure on Iran, and to insist that Iran get right with the world and to live up to its international obligations.”
However in an address to Bulletin of Atomic Scientists last week Gottemoeller, Rose Gottemoeller Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance conceded, “We continue to believe, as we have stated before, that Iran has a right to a peaceful nuclear power program...”
Labels: IAEA report, Iran nuclear programme, Iran sanctions
Thursday, July 15, 2010
U.S. cautions India against “business as usual” with Iran
From The Hindu
The United States has “made clear in conversations with many countries… [that there] cannot be a situation of business as usual” with Iran, a senior State Department official said on Monday.
The comments, by Assistant Secretary Philip Crowley, were by way of response to the recent statement by Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao that unilateral sanctions by the U.S. would affect the business of Indian companies in Iran. Ms. Rao had also said that India’s energy security and development needs would be affected by such sanctions.
Outlining the U.S. view on adherence to the Iran sanctions Mr. Crowley emphasised, “Every country obviously pursues its own self-interest of its citizens. We understand that. By the same token, all countries have international obligations to fully respect and to heed the sanctions that were passed by the Security Council last month.”
He added that the U.S. was taking “our own steps to fully implement those sanctions and to take additional steps within our own laws” noting also that it was “up to Iran to come forward and engage the [International Atomic Energy Agency] IAEA and the international community constructively.”
Arguing that the “future of the world” was at stake, Mr. Crowley warned of “the danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which will affect countries outside of the region, including India”. He said that all countries had a responsibility to do what they could to convince Iran to change its present course. “I’ll leave it to India to describe what steps it is going to take,” he added.
He did not immediately comment on whether the U.S. was talking to either India or Pakistan regarding their plans for a gas pipeline project with Iran.
With inputs from analyst Nisha Krishnan
The United States has “made clear in conversations with many countries… [that there] cannot be a situation of business as usual” with Iran, a senior State Department official said on Monday.
The comments, by Assistant Secretary Philip Crowley, were by way of response to the recent statement by Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao that unilateral sanctions by the U.S. would affect the business of Indian companies in Iran. Ms. Rao had also said that India’s energy security and development needs would be affected by such sanctions.
Outlining the U.S. view on adherence to the Iran sanctions Mr. Crowley emphasised, “Every country obviously pursues its own self-interest of its citizens. We understand that. By the same token, all countries have international obligations to fully respect and to heed the sanctions that were passed by the Security Council last month.”
He added that the U.S. was taking “our own steps to fully implement those sanctions and to take additional steps within our own laws” noting also that it was “up to Iran to come forward and engage the [International Atomic Energy Agency] IAEA and the international community constructively.”
Arguing that the “future of the world” was at stake, Mr. Crowley warned of “the danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which will affect countries outside of the region, including India”. He said that all countries had a responsibility to do what they could to convince Iran to change its present course. “I’ll leave it to India to describe what steps it is going to take,” he added.
He did not immediately comment on whether the U.S. was talking to either India or Pakistan regarding their plans for a gas pipeline project with Iran.
With inputs from analyst Nisha Krishnan
Labels: IAEA, India-Iran ties, Iran sanctions, State Department
Friday, June 11, 2010
U.S. insists Iran sanctions not “double standard”
From The Hindu
In a media blitz that closely followed the announcement of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions against Iran for its alleged nuclear programme, President Barack Obama and his administration sought to dispel any notion that they were using a “double standard” in not giving the diplomatic channels for resolving the dispute a fair chance.
In a statement Mr. Obama said, “There is no double standard at play here. We have made it clear, time and again, that we respect Iran’s right, like all countries, to access peaceful nuclear energy. That is a right embedded in the Non Proliferation Treaty.”
He also praised the UNSC for imposing “the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government”, noting that they sent an “unmistakable message about the international community’s commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons”.
Commenting that these were also “the most comprehensive sanctions that the Iranian government has faced,” Mr. Obama noted that they would impose restrictions not only on Iran’s nuclear activities and its ballistic missile program but also on its conventional military, on Iranian banks and financial transactions, individuals, entities, and institutions associated with the Revolutionary Guard.
Arguing that sanctions had not been inevitable, Mr. Obama emphasised his government’s two-track approach: “We made clear from the beginning of my administration that the U.S. was prepared to pursue diplomatic solutions to address the concerns over Iranian nuclear programmes… Together with the United Kingdom, with Russia, China, and Germany… we offered the Iranian government the prospect of a better future for its people, if and only if it lives up to its international obligations.”
Dual-track strategy
In highlighting the dual-track strategy in negotiations, Mr. Obama sought to pre-empt the charge that the sanctions, given their timing, potentially undermined the recent move by Iran to extend its cooperation through the fuel-swap deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil. Last month, Iran announced that it would be willing to move low-enriched uranium off its soil in return for 20 per cent enriched uranium that could be used in the Tehran Research Reactor for medical isotopes.
Although the White House initially greeted the fuel-swap deal as a “positive step”, it subsequently criticised the proposal for not addressing the question of uranium enrichment that Iran said it would continue. Further, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had noted at the time, Iran had not agreed, as it did in October, to hold detailed discussions with the P-5+1 group of nuclear powers nor agreed to provide unfettered access to its nuclear facilities in areas such as Qom.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed the same emphasis on the dual-track approach, arguing that the adoption of the UNSC Resolution 1929 on Iran went “well beyond the pre-existing sanctions on Iran. That said, we have worked hard to minimise their impact on the Iranian people”. She further noted that the adoption of Resolution 1929 kept the door open for continued engagement between the P5+1 and Iran and the U.S. “is committed to a diplomatic solution to the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program”.
Susan Rice, U.S. representative to the UN, commented on why the P5+1 group had chosen to disregard any positive implications of the fuel-swap deal. She said, “Turkey and Brazil have worked hard to make progress on the Tehran Research Reactor proposal — efforts that reflect their leaders’ good intentions to address the Iranian people’s humanitarian needs while building more international confidence about the nature of Iran’s nuclear program.” Neither Turkey nor Brazil voted in favour of imposing the sanctions on Iran.
However, she noted, “The Tehran Research Reactor proposal — then and now — does not respond to the fundamental, well-founded, and unanswered concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. This resolution does,” she said, adding that the U.S. would continue to discuss the Iranian-revised proposal and their concerns about it, “as appropriate”.
Not directed at Iranian people
Another key thrust of the messages that the administration has put out to the media since the announcement of sanctions has been the emphasis that the sanctions would not negatively impact the people of Iran but would only target specific parts of the Iranian state that were involved in supporting the country’s alleged nuclear programme in one way or another. For example, President Obama and Ms. Rice said, “These sanctions are not directed at the Iranian people.”
However, responding to questions from media, Under Secretary for Political Affairs William Burns cast such assertions in doubt as he said, “I’ll be honest with you, there is no perfect assurance that you can give with regard to a sanctions regime or a new sanctions resolution and its impact on a country and a society.” He went on to state, “We have tried… to minimise the impact on the Iranian people and maximise the impact on that calculation of the Iranian leadership. Is that a perfect solution? No, I would not pretend that.”
Additionally, Mr. Burns defended the sanctions’ targeting of the Iranian Central Bank, saying, “Focus, not only on the Central Bank but on the Iranian banking system and ways in which the international financial system can be manipulated, is an important new development and a significant step forward in this resolution.”
Labels: Iran nuclear programme, Iran sanctions, U.S.-Iran relations, UNSC
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Iran deal with Turkey, Brazil does not address P-5+1 concerns: White House
From The Hindu
The White House on Thursday firmly rejected the notion that Iran’s agreement to move low-enriched uranium off its soil, a deal Iran negotiated earlier this week with Turkey and Brazil, was sufficient to get the P-5+1 group of nuclear and developed countries to drop its pursuit of sanctions.
At a briefing the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said it was important to understand that “the proposal that Iran says they have entered into now is less than what they agreed to eight months ago”.
He argued that Iran had not agreed now, as it had in October, to sit down with the P-5+1 to hold a broader, fuller discussion about its nuclear program, nor had it agreed to provide unfettered access to nuclear facilities such as Qom. Additionally, “The proposal does not address in any form the increased enrichment that Iran said it was undertaking in order to provide material for their research reactor,” Mr. Gibbs said.
All these differences between what Iran was presently offering and its statements last October implied, Mr. Gibbs suggested, that the efforts of the Turks and the Brazilians did not address “all of the concerns that the P-5+1 and the larger international community have with Iran’s nuclear programme”. However he added that he acknowledged the role that Turkey and Brazil had played in “trying to get Iran to live up to its obligations”.
Mr. Gibbs nevertheless admitted that the proposal that was outlined on Monday “would be a step in the right direction because of the amount of low-enriched uranium that would be transferred [out of Iran],” – even if the last eight months have seen Iran continue with “increased enrichment” of uranium.
Regarding the discussions on sanctions currently underway at the United Nations Security Council, State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said, “The resolution that has been tabled is now being evaluated by the entire Security Council, and we will continue to consult broadly on its particulars in the coming days and weeks.”
He added that the United States was “still looking for and expects support within the Council for a new sanctions resolution, and as we have said many, many times, that not only with existing measures, but adding new measures and new teeth to this”.
To a question from The Hindu on what the U.S. had to say to countries such as India and others in the G-15 group who may be friendly with Iran and felt the fuel swap deal was a sign of Iran’s willingness to cooperate, Mr. Crowley said, “We would expect all countries in the world to live up to their international obligations.”
Labels: Iran sanctions, low-enriched uranium, nuclear power, P5+1
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
P-5+1 group has agreed “strong draft” of Iran sanctions resolution: Clinton
The United States has reached a new agreement with the P-5+1 group of major developed countries on a “strong draft” of a resolution for sanctions against Iran, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said today.
Speaking at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Ms. Clinton made a reference to U.S. scepticism on Iran’s acceptance of a proposal to give up some of its low-enriched uranium in exchange for 20 percent enriched uranium from Turkey: “This announcement is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days as any we could provide.”
As per the proposals agreed by Tehran in exchange for moving low-enriched uranium off its soil Iran would receive 20 percent enriched uranium for use by the Tehran Research Reactor for medical isotopes.
However the Secretary went on to argue that that there were a number of unanswered questions regarding the announcement coming from Tehran, despite the sincere efforts of both Turkey and Brazil to find a solution regarding Iran’s standoff with the international community over its nuclear program.
Ms. Clinton also outlined the next steps that the U.S. would take in this matter. She said that the P-5+1, which consists of Russia, China, the U.S., Britain, France, and Germany, along with the High Representative of the European Union, would proceed to “rally the international community on behalf of a strong sanctions resolution” that would send an unmistakable message about what is expected from Iran.
China and Russia had previously resisted the U.S.’s push for United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran, and it was anticipated that fuel-swap deal might further crystallise that resistance.
Labels: Hillary Clinton, Iran sanctions, nuclear power, P-5+1
Iran fuel swap deal “positive step”, but enrichment will lead to sanctions: U.S.
From The Hindu
While describing as a “positive step” Iran’s acceptance of proposals to transfer low-enriched uranium off its soil, the United States however warned that it still had “serious concerns” about Iran’s stated intention to continue its 20 percent enrichment, a step that the U.S. would consider a “direct violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions”.
Acknowledging the negotiation efforts by Turkey and Brazil towards advancing the fuel swap deal, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “The proposal announced in Tehran must now be conveyed clearly and authoritatively to the International Atomic Energy Agency before it can be considered by the international community.”
Stressing Iran’s repeated failure to live up to its own commitments, and the need to address fundamental issues related to Iran’s nuclear program, Mr. Gibbs further voiced concern that “The Joint Declaration issued in Tehran is vague about Iran’s willingness to meet with the P5+1 countries to address international concerns about its nuclear program, as it also agreed to do last October.”
Explaining what this would mean for the U.S.’s Iran policy, Mr. Gibbs added that the U.S. would continue to work with its international partners, including the U.N., to “make it clear to the Iranian government that it must demonstrate through deeds – and not simply words – its willingness to live up to international obligations.” Iran would otherwise have to “face consequences, including sanctions,” Mr. Gibbs warned.
In particular, Iran must take the steps necessary to assure the international community that its nuclear program was intended exclusively for peaceful purposes, and to this end the White House statement noted that the U.S. remained committed to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear program, as part of the P5+1 dual track approach.
While describing as a “positive step” Iran’s acceptance of proposals to transfer low-enriched uranium off its soil, the United States however warned that it still had “serious concerns” about Iran’s stated intention to continue its 20 percent enrichment, a step that the U.S. would consider a “direct violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions”.
Acknowledging the negotiation efforts by Turkey and Brazil towards advancing the fuel swap deal, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “The proposal announced in Tehran must now be conveyed clearly and authoritatively to the International Atomic Energy Agency before it can be considered by the international community.”
Stressing Iran’s repeated failure to live up to its own commitments, and the need to address fundamental issues related to Iran’s nuclear program, Mr. Gibbs further voiced concern that “The Joint Declaration issued in Tehran is vague about Iran’s willingness to meet with the P5+1 countries to address international concerns about its nuclear program, as it also agreed to do last October.”
Explaining what this would mean for the U.S.’s Iran policy, Mr. Gibbs added that the U.S. would continue to work with its international partners, including the U.N., to “make it clear to the Iranian government that it must demonstrate through deeds – and not simply words – its willingness to live up to international obligations.” Iran would otherwise have to “face consequences, including sanctions,” Mr. Gibbs warned.
In particular, Iran must take the steps necessary to assure the international community that its nuclear program was intended exclusively for peaceful purposes, and to this end the White House statement noted that the U.S. remained committed to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear program, as part of the P5+1 dual track approach.
Labels: fuel swap deal, Iran nuclear programme, Iran sanctions
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
