NOVANEWS
Pro-I$raHell group lists shortcomings of P5+1 interim accord but accepts it as fait accompli; U.S. administration tries to allay concerns of Jewish leaders about the deal.
Haaretz
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has released a new position paper on the Iranian nuclear deal in which it calls on Congress to “legislate additional sanctions so that Iran will face immediate consequences should it renege on its commitments or refuse to negotiate an acceptable final agreement.”
An unusual three page “memo” released by AIPAC on Monday afternoon criticizes the recently-signed interim agreement signed by the P5+1 countries with Iran on Sunday – but does not reject it outright. It calls on Congress to pass legislation that would “increase the pressure on Iran and ensure that any future deal denies Tehran a nuclear weapons capability.”
Although the U.S. administration opposes any new Congressional legislation on sanctions, the new AIPAC position backing such a move appears to be less confrontational than before. Just last Friday, the organization appeared to be supporting sanctions that would be implemented regardless of the interim accord, while it now seems to be backing sanctions would only be implemented if Iran does not live up to its commitments or if it fails to reach a final deal.
The publication of the paper came against the backdrop of a concerted effort by the U.S. adminstration to quell American Jewish criticism of the Iran deal. Senior National Security Council officials made conference calls to Jewish leaders, telling them that the Iran deal protected Israeli security and served its interests.
The paper criticizes the P5+1 agreement because it includes “implicit acceptance of Iranian enrichment,” although AIPAC itself omits any specific call to ban enrichment saying instead that “any final agreement must deny Iran both uranium and plutonium paths to develop nuclear weapons.” Sources in the organization, however, said that there was no softening in the group’s position and that it continues to demand a “complete dismantling of Iran’s enrichment capability and no reprocessing capability.”
The paper notes in a positive manner that the interim agreement converts Iran’s stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium, caps its levels of low enriched uranium, stops “advancements” at the nuclear plans in Natanz and Fordow and increases “intrusive inspections” by the International Atomic Energy Agency at various nuclear installations.
But it also criticizes the fact that Iran can continue enriching uranium, that it does not reduce its total number of centrifuges, that it retains “5-7 bombs worth of low-enriched uranium,” that it does not deal with Iran’s weaponization infrastructure – and that it provides substantial sanctions relief in exchange.
The paper also notes that the p5+1 agreement raises concerns that Iran will “will be able to resume nuclear-weapons related activities at will,” even after a final deal is signed.
The paper ends with a list of Congressional leaders, from both parties, who have criticized the interim deal and who are now calling for additional sanctions to be applied.
AIPAC memo
Although the U.S. administration opposes any new Congressional legislation on sanctions, the new AIPAC position backing such a move appears to be less confrontational than before. Just last Friday, the organization appeared to be supporting sanctions that would be implemented regardless of the interim accord, while it now seems to be backing sanctions would only be implemented if Iran does not live up to its commitments or if it fails to reach a final deal.
The publication of the paper came against the backdrop of a concerted effort by the U.S. adminstration to quell American Jewish criticism of the Iran deal. Senior National Security Council officials made conference calls to Jewish leaders, telling them that the Iran deal protected Israeli security and served its interests.
The paper criticizes the P5+1 agreement because it includes “implicit acceptance of Iranian enrichment,” although AIPAC itself omits any specific call to ban enrichment saying instead that “any final agreement must deny Iran both uranium and plutonium paths to develop nuclear weapons.” Sources in the organization, however, said that there was no softening in the group’s position and that it continues to demand a “complete dismantling of Iran’s enrichment capability and no reprocessing capability.”
The paper notes in a positive manner that the interim agreement converts Iran’s stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium, caps its levels of low enriched uranium, stops “advancements” at the nuclear plans in Natanz and Fordow and increases “intrusive inspections” by the International Atomic Energy Agency at various nuclear installations.
But it also criticizes the fact that Iran can continue enriching uranium, that it does not reduce its total number of centrifuges, that it retains “5-7 bombs worth of low-enriched uranium,” that it does not deal with Iran’s weaponization infrastructure – and that it provides substantial sanctions relief in exchange.
The paper also notes that the p5+1 agreement raises concerns that Iran will “will be able to resume nuclear-weapons related activities at will,” even after a final deal is signed.
The paper ends with a list of Congressional leaders, from both parties, who have criticized the interim deal and who are now calling for additional sanctions to be applied.
AIPAC memo
