Saturday, 25 April 2015

Hezbollah's Secret Airstrip Discovered


------------------------------------------- Eds Note:  With the Syrian conflict on rise, along with the developing Middle East crisis, Hezbollah is capitalizing on the resources to be prepared to combat his enemies. Pentagon needs to deeply think their war strategy, alongwith Obama's vision on foreign policy needs revisiting.  (063 News)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEBANON:
Lebanon based Hezbollah has constructed an airstrip in the northern Bekaa Valley for the takeoff and landing of its unmanned aerial vehicles, satellite imagery has revealed.
Reports by IHS Jane’s indicate the airstrip was built in a sparsely populated area slightly south of the northern Lebanese region of Hermel, bordering the Syrian border, sometime between February 27, 2013 and June 19, 2014.

The airstrip itself is very simple. It consists of a single unpaved strip that is 670 meters long and 20 meters wide. Materials for the strip were taken from a nearby quarry to build up its northern end and to level it out.
The short length of the air strip indicates that it is not used to smuggle in weapons from Syria or Iran, since it is too short to be used by nearly all other transport aircraft used by either country’s air force, with the exception of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ An-74T-200 short take-off transports.
According to Jane’s, the most likely explanation is that the runway was “built for Iranian-made UAVs, including the Ababil-3, which has been employed over Syria by forces allied to the Syrian regime, and possibly the newer and larger Shahed-129.”

Hezbollah has already confirmed that it is using UAVs to support its operations against opposition forces in Syria, particularly over the strategically-important Qalamoun region on Lebanon’s eastern border.

An antenna, which might be used to extend the range of a local UAV ground control station, is also located close to the strip, along with six small utility buildings, though none are large enough to house an Ababil-3. However, according to Jane’s, “there is a facility constructed in a valley 2.5 kilometers (1.5 miles) west of the airstrip that includes two utility buildings large enough to house UAVs.”

The site is also guarded by a checkpoint and swing gate, similar to other Hezbollah facilities that are located across Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

News Edited By:   KANWAL ABIDI   063 News
                               *Political Analyst & Journalist


Thursday, 16 April 2015

Pakistan holds High-level meeting on Yemen

PR. No. 120/2015
 Office of the Spokesperson
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Press Release 

PM Chairs High-level meeting on Yemen situation

Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif chaired a high-level meeting on Yemen situation at the PM House here this evening, which was attended by Advisor to PM on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Mr. Sartaj Aziz; Chief Minister Punjab, Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif; SAPM, Mr. Tariq Fatemi; Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, General Rashad Mahmood; Chief of the Army Staff, General Raheel Sharif; Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sohail Aman; Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Muhammad Zakaullah; Chief of General Staff, Lt. General Ashfaq Nadeem Ahmad and Foreign Secretary, Mr. Aizaz Ahmed Chaudhry along with other senior officials.

Chief Minister Punjab, Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, who visited Saudi Arabia on 15th April as Special Envoy of the Prime Minister, along with Advisor to PM , Chief of General Staff and Foreign Secretary briefed the meeting about the outcome of their discussions with the leadership of the Kingdom. 

Objective of the visit:
The objective of the visit was to express solidarity with the leadership and people of Saudi Arabia. During this visit the delegation met with His Royal Highness, Prince Muhammad bin Naif, Deputy Crown Prince and Minister for Interior and His Royal Highness Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia.
The meeting was apprised that Mr. Shahbaz Sharif reiterated to the Saudi leaders unequivocal support of the government and people of Pakistan to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia while reaffirming that the people of Pakistan stand ever-ready to protect Harmain Al-Sharifain and the people of Saudi Arabia. Pakistan has always stood by Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia with Pakistan, he said.

The meeting was informed that Saudi leaders reciprocated the warmth of relations between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and reaffirmed the special bond of friendship between the two countries. The Saudi leadership also appreciated the statement of the Prime Minister of Pakistan of 13th April, 2015 amplifying the resolution of the parliament of 10th April, 2015. The delegation held detailed discussions with the Saudi leadership on the situation in Yemen and condemned the violent overthrow of the legitimate government of President Hadi by the Houthis.

UN imposes embargo on weapons:
The civil and military leadership was further informed that the delegation welcomed the adoption of UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution of 14th April, 2015 calling upon the Houthis to end the use of violence that undermines political transition in Yemen, and calls upon them to withdraw their forces from all areas they have seized, including the capital Sana’a, and relinquish all arms seized from military and security institutions. The delegation also expressed its concerns on the reports of foreign support to the Houthis, and noted with satisfaction that the UN resolution requires all member states to prevent supply of arms and equipment to Houthis and their allies, including by inspecting all cargo going to Yemen, if the state concerned has information that the cargo contains the supply of arms prohibited under the UN resolution.

During their briefing the delegation members said they affirmed to the Saudi leadership that the government of Pakistan would fully participate and contribute to the implementation of the UNSC resolution, and discussed the possibility of expanding Pakistan's cooperation with Saudi Arabia in compatibility with the UNSC resolution, and pursuant to paragraphs 10 and 11 of parliament's resolution of 10th April.

The meeting expressed satisfaction on the efforts being made by leadership, government and people of Pakistan to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Saudi brothers, and play a constructive role for a peaceful resolution of the crisis in Yemen.
The high-level meeting expressed the hope that in accordance with the UNSC resolution, all Yemeni parties would resolve their differences through dialogue and consultation, and all parties would take steps to agree and implement a consensus based political solution to Yemen's crisis in accordance with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) initiative and its Implementation Mechanism and the outcomes of comprehensive National Dialogue conference.

Edited by: KANWAL ABIDI (063 News)
                 *Political Analyst & Journalist

Islamabad
April 16, 2015

Tuesday, 14 April 2015

Mapping Chaos in Yemen


Yemen is more of Civil War issue, rather than pulling GCC countries in it & involving Pakistan too

ADEN, Yemen — Rooftop snipers have emptied the streets of this dusty seaside city and swelled its hospitals and morgues.Weeks of fighting between armed groups have left nearly 200 people dead and the city starved of water, fuel and electricity. Hospitals struggle to obtain anesthetic and dressings. Barefoot, nervous teenagers with matted hair and guns mind checkpoints on the treacherous roads. Gun battles sweep across the city while residents lie low and worry that there is worse suffering to come.

“The war of hunger has not started — yet,” said Ali Bamatraf, a grocer with dwindling stocks, standing among empty food boxes that would not soon be replaced.As war engulfs Yemen, no place in the beleaguered country has suffered as severely as Aden, a southern port city captive to ferocious street fighting for the better part of a harrowing month. Foreign navies patrol its waters and warplanes circle above, blockading a city that is steadily crumbling under reckless fire from tanks and heavy guns.


“Damaged. Ruined,” said Faris al-Shuaibi, a professor of English literature at Aden University, searching for the words to describe the beaten-up neighborhood around him. “Everything is destroyed.”

Start of Clash:

The clashes began in mid-March as a feud between forces allied with two members of Yemen’s political elite: southern fighters loyal to President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, who had retreated to Aden after being driven from the capital, against Houthi militiamen and security forces allied with Ali Abdullah Saleh, Yemen’s former leader.

Weeks later, the war has spread and become far more complicated. Saudi Arabia unleashed an air offensive last month that so far has failed in its primary goal: to stop the Houthi advance.

*Saudi officials are threatening a ground invasion, seeing the hand of Iran, their regional nemesis, behind the Houthis, whose leaders follow an offshoot of Shiite Islam.

For many residents of Aden, though, each day has only simplified the conflict, reducing it to an existential fight. After Mr. Hadi and most of his loyal fighters quit the city, residents dusted off personal weapons and formed their own units to fight the advance of the Houthis and their allies — the latest northern invaders, they say, seeking to dominate the south.

North and South Yemen were separate countries until 1990 and fought a brief civil war four years later. For decades, southern grievances over ill treatment by the rulers in the northern capital, Sana, have festered, escalating in recent years into a movement openly calling for secession.

Professor Shuaibi was among thousands of people protesting peacefully a few months ago in Aden for an independent state, in a square adorned with pictures of southerners who had died in wars and at the hands of Mr. Saleh’s security forces.

On Thursday, he was back in the streets with a gun, preparing to join other residents fighting in the central district of Al Mualla.

The local militias are loosely organized, dominated by young men focused on securing their own neighborhoods, said Jamal Khulaqi, a 25-year-old Yemeni-American from Buffalo who said he was helping with relief efforts in the city. Most lack training and weapons apart from AK-47s.

Their opponents are mostly security men loyal to Mr. Saleh, known for their repression back when they were in power. Now, as militiamen, residents say, they are unrestrained and more brutal. “They are bombing innocent people, families,” Professor Shuaibi said.

The Houthis, fighting all over the country, are a smaller part of the force in Aden, their ranks filled with many teenagers and even some children. Some of the young Houthis who had been captured seemed filled with religious zeal and said they had been told they were going to Aden to fight Al-Qaeda, the Sunni extremists the Houthis regard as their principal foe, Professor Shuaibi said.“There is no Al-Qaeda here,” he said.




------> The city has been carved up into sectors guarded by fighters with guns slung over their shoulders, drained by the stresses of war but still full of swagger. One fighter, Mohamed Saleh Salem, 38, called the local fighters “ferocious” and vowed that the Houthis would not advance, while adding that he had not had a bath in days.

The Houthis and their allies, armed with tanks and other heavy weapons, have captured several strategic areas, including a coastal road. But their hold on the city remains shaky, and they are vulnerable to repeated attacks by the local groups, which are fighting in familiar neighborhoods.

The Houthi forces respond savagely to any assault, Mr. Khulaqi said. “When someone shoots at them, they fire on buildings,” he said as he drove a friend through the city’s checkpoints to catch the only bus still shuttling people out of Aden and across the country to the Saudi border.

As dangerous as it is to travel outside the city, it has become deadly to stay. Volunteer medics said that at least 198 people had been killed and nearly 2,000 people injured in the city since March 25. The estimate was probably conservative: Ambulances have not been able to reach people in neighborhoods with the heaviest fighting, said Khadeja bin Bourek, a volunteer aid worker, who said there was also a shortage of medics at government hospitals.

Casualty Update:

*Valerie Pierre, the project coordinator for Doctors Without Borders in Aden, said an average of 15 to 20 patients, most of them gunshot victims, arrived every day at a hospital where the group is working and living. The group had just received its first shipment of medical supplies by boat from the tiny East African nation of Djibouti, across a narrow strait from Aden, but still had only a third of the supplies it needed.

Ms. Pierre, a midwife, arrived in Aden in January, finding a “beautiful city, a very historic place.” Now, she and the doctors are sequestered, listening to gun battles, sometimes distant, sometimes just outside the hospital walls.

“I am full of adrenaline, so I am still running, still motivated,” she said. “It is very scary.

Elsewhere in the city, residents were hauling water in buckets because water tanks supplying at least four districts had been destroyed or cut off by the fighting. In many places, electricity was only available a few hours each day. Only local neighborhood stores were open, and by 7 p.m., the streets were empty, except for the fighters.

Saudi airstrikes have mostly targeted the outskirts of the city, in an attempt to cut off the supply lines of the Houthis and their allies. There also appears to have been shelling from warships, though no one seems to know for sure.

“Aden is almost the only city in Yemen to be attacked by air, sea and land,” said Nashwan al-Othmani, a resident.

The siege has left little time to think about the political arguments dividing the country. No one seems to be clamoring for the return of Mr. Hadi, whom the Saudis have vowed to restore as president.

“There are many who criticize Hadi,” Mr. Othmani said. “There are many who accuse him of bringing the struggle to Aden and then leaving.”

Edited By:

KANWAL ABIDI   ( 063 News) - Global Press Agency (founder)
- Journalist & Political Analyst

Editors' Point of Order:
Saudis should lobby to restore Hadi, rather than indulge in airstrikes in the name of territorial integrity.



Monday, 6 April 2015

Iran Nukes Deal Done or Not?

Iran Nuclear Agreement: Is It a Done Deal?
Despite the fanfare about reaching a framework on Nuclear Agreement, there appears to be a big gap in the perception of what was actually agreed to.



Edited by:    KANWAL ABIDI     ( 063 News - Press Agency )
                    Journalist & Political Analyst
..........................................................................................................
After months of intensive negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran, EU Foreign Policy Chief Frederica Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, amid much media fanfare, announced a joint statement of principles outlining the agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program.
The announcement was followed by a statement by President Obama framing the agreement as a victory for sanctions and diplomacy. Despite the announcement of the agreement and the subsequent celebrations and recriminations, it remains clear that a lot of hard work, difficult bargaining over details and political arm twisting and horse trading will be required before the June 30 deadline for the final agreement.
The U.S. and its allies on the P5+1, having long since abandoned the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) principles to “allow and inspect” and having focused on a policy to “deny and punish,” have insisted on a one-year “breakout time to a nuclear weapon,” a nebulous concept subject to much debate and interpretation.
They never have acknowledged Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program; a right which has been the cornerstone of the Iranian negotiating position.
In line with this position, Iran has insisted that they are unwilling to make what they call “irreversible change” to their nuclear infrastructure in return for a “suspension” of sanctions. They want the sanctions “lifted.” Given the long history of “double dealing” by the western powers, Iran does not have a lot of trust that it won’t happen again as the stated position of the U.S. with respect to Iran is “regime change.”
Shortly after the announcement of the agreement, the U.S. State Department issued a “fact sheet” apparently designed to spin the agreement for domestic consumption.
The release contains a series of bullet points that purport to explain what has been agreed to.
While many of the points regarding Iran’s obligations reflect the joint announcement, in the area of the lifting of sanctions there appears to be a wide gap. Foreign Minister Zarif immediately tweeted: “The solutions are good for all, as they stand. There is no need to spin using ‘fact sheets’ so early on.”
With regard to sanctions the joint announcement says, “The European Union will terminate the implementation of all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions and the United States will cease the application of all nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation by Iran of its key nuclear commitments."
"A new UN Security Council resolution will endorse the JCPOA, terminate all previous nuclear-related resolutions, and incorporate certain restrictive measures for a mutually agreed period of time.”

The State Department fact sheet says,
·         Iran will receive sanctions relief, if it verifiably abides by its commitments.
·         S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place.
·         The architecture of U.S. nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be retained for much of the duration of the deal and allow for snap-back of sanctions in the event of significant non-performance.
·         All past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous (sic) with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment, Fordow, Arak, PMD, and transparency).
·         However, core provisions in the UN Security Council resolutions – those that deal with transfers of sensitive technologies and activities – will be re-established by a new UN Security Council resolution that will endorse the JCPOA and urge its full implementation. It will also create the procurement channel mentioned above, which will serve as a key transparency measure. Important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, as well as provisions that allow for related cargo inspections and asset freezes, will also be incorporated by this new resolution.    (063 news)


Twitter Update on Iran Nuke Deal:
Zarif’s Twitter reaction to this was “Iran/5+1 Statement: ‘US will cease the application of ALL nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions.’ Is this gradual?” and “Iran/P5+1 Statement: ‘The EU will TERMINATE the implementation of ALL nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions’ How about this?” (Original emphasis.)
There appears to be a big gap in the perception of what was agreed to. The U.S. appears to be saying one thing to its negotiating partners and another to its domestic constituencies. Not a recipe for success. We may have a long way to go.


Thursday, 19 March 2015

Netanyahu "Mr Security" Strategy helps secure victory


The two-state solution is here already:

News Edited By:           KANWAL ABIDI
                             *Journalist & Political Analyst

*Two thriving states exist in Israel, one alongside the other. The problem is, these are two states for one nation. There is the state of Tel Aviv and its metropolitan areas — Gush Dan and the Sharon region — this is the European state. It is characterized by a very high gross national product, liberal values, diplomatic moderation, pragmatic security viewpoint and very lively social-cultural life. Its capital is Tel Aviv. Next to it is the Judean state, the Middle Eastern state. This state is haunted by archaic fears; it is prickly, isolationist and conservative. It is a state that prefers religious values over democratic ones, a state that is (justly) suspicious of its neighbors. With one hand it grasps a firearm; with the other, a weapon. This Middle Eastern state, whose capital city is Jerusalem, was victorious in Israel's March 17 elections and defeated its European neighbor state.
-----------------------> True, Israel is a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development but in reality it has other affiliations. By the way, sometime in the future, history will demonstrate which of these states was more appropriate for the country’s residents. Will the survival instincts of Israel’s residents in the violent Middle East neighborhood emerge as justified over the arrogant cultural bubble created by the residents of Israel’s “Europe”?
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political exploits in the last four days of his electoral campaign shaped one of the most amazing and successful campaigns in the history of Israeli politics. According to all the polls, at the end of the week he lagged behind the Zionist Campby a steady disparity of four seats. There were days last week when, in internal polls, it seemed Bibi might get even fewer than 20 Knesset seats. The feeling was that Netanyahu was losing his touch. That the Israeli public was tired of him and his spins.
Netanyahu embarked on a massive intimidation campaign, took off his kid gloves, voraciously fell upon the parties to his right — Naftali Bennett's HaBayit HaYehudi, Avigdor Liberman's Yisrael Beitenu and Eli Yishai's Yachad — and ate them for breakfast. On the way, he left scorched earth behind him.
Netanyahu retracted his Bar Ilan speech, in which he accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state — he will soon have to deal with the results of that retraction — and announced that a Palestinian state would not arise. He incited the Arab electorate in Israel, insulted Kulanu Party head Moshe Kahlon, transformed Israel’s political left and center into “destroyers of the nation” and promised the moon to everyone — just to remain in power. Netanyahu is a no-holds-barred politician but an effective one. What wins is his tremendous, unconquerable desire to continue to be premier. Opposite him stood a colorless politician, uncharismatic and lacking claims to any security-defense credentials. A candidate who, we see after the fact, could not have won.
Now the lesson is final: Israelis love to talk about socio-economic issues, but they will vote for the security ticket. It’s a fact.
Two sectors must do some soul-searching. First, the pollsters. We have not seen a setback like this for a long time. Only one pollster, the American Mark Mellman, who works for Yair Lapid and Yesh Atid, foresaw victory for the Likud the entire time. A week before the elections, when all the other pollsters predicted a four-seat lead for Zionist Camp leader Isaac Herzog over Netanyahu, Mellman predicted a four-seat lead for Netanyahu. No one, including the writer of this article, took him seriously. Only one pollster versus all the rest.
An entire industry of polls went bankrupt on March 17. Not only did they mess up throughout the entire campaign, they even failed at the moment of truth, with highly publicized, deluxe television mockups. Channels 10 and 1 declared a tie of 27; Channel 2 determined 27 for Herzog and 28 for Netanyahu. The final results were completely different: a resounding 30 seats for the Likud and 24 for the Zionist Camp (prior to counting the soldiers’ votes).
Netanyahu enlarged his pool of voters by about 60% in three to four days. This points to the survival instincts and the strong life wish of the ideological right-wing electors who told themselves: "Yes, we love Bennett, we cling to Liberman — but if we don’t vote Netanyahu, the left will return to power and it will all be over." So they returned to Netanyahu. Not for love so much as for lack of choice. He knew how to play all the right chords at the right time, and win.
The second sector in need of some soul-searching is the media, including the writer of these lines. We will have to enrich our toolbox; our addiction to polls turned out to be ruinous. Just imagine someone getting into your cell phone and stealing your Waze application, or any other GPS you use. Suddenly you’d have to navigate on your own. To go back to the streets, the alleyways, the strange names, directions, left-right and spatial orientation. The more the polling/sampling industry and the surveys have grown and improved, the more we have gotten rusty and out of practice. Instead of looking for the people, we found the pollsters. So, now it’s over. The TV samples also won’t go back to what they used to be, once upon a time. Now, we will also have to get used to working with our feet again.
There is someone else who has to re-examine himself on the morning of March 18: US President Barack Obama. This morning, a highly placed Israeli personality who is well versed in US-Israel relations over the generations (but understandably asked to remain anonymous) told me: “The American administration is also to blame for Netanyahu’s progression to exaggerated dimensions,” she said.
“President Obama allowed Netanyahu to reach the heart of the administration’s nerve center and stand there, to deliver a speech to both houses of Congress, as if he was the American president and not the head of a tiny country dependent on the US. Next to Netanyahu, Obama suddenly seemed like Isaac Herzog. He publicly hazed the president, and got home safe and sound. The Americans should have made Netanyahu pay a price, but they did not do this. It’s a shame they didn’t look into what happened in 1975, when President Gerald Ford wanted to teach the Israeli government a lesson, announcing a 'reassessment of relations' between the countries.
"It took the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin only a few short months before he gave in. The Israelis are a nation dealing with survival, and the most important thing to them is not to be taken for suckers. They watched their prime minister take the strongest person in the world to task; they also watched as Netanyahu’s patron, right-wing Republican gambling magnate and billionaire Sheldon Adelson, also humiliate the president whenever he wants. They understood that, although Israel’s ambassador to Washington Ron Dermer is persona non grata in the administration, he continues to circulate in the US as much as he wants. They understood that Bibi defeated Obama. This deepens the tragedy with everything regarding the functioning of the American administration in the Middle East arena in general and the Israeli arena in specific, from the first minute.”
What will happen now? The educated guess is that Netanyahu will establish the government he committed himself to, with the right wing and the ultra-Orthodox. Then afterward he will try to attach Herzog or Lapid to it, to provide the fig leaf to help him deal with the many hardships waiting for him in the international arena.
The current kingmaker is Kahlon, the man who came from nowhere and raked in 10 seats. While these very words are being written, political feelers are underway between Kahlon and Liberman (who succeeded in surviving against all odds) to establish a joint political bloc. Together, with 16 seats, they would be able to leverage themselves and hint to Netanyahu that all options are open.
Kahlon wants to be finance minister. Liberman wants to be defense minister. An alliance with Kahlon would give Liberman a one-up over Bennett, who also wants the Defense Ministry portfolio (an article printed recently here in Al-Monitor covered the anticipated scuffle over the security post). When we add to this mix the fact that current Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon really does not want to leave his job, we uncover Netanyahu’s first headache. And we haven’t even talked about what kind of reception Netanyahu’s government will receive if its defense minister is Bennett or even Liberman.
In the center-left arena: deep mourning. Herzog was a colorless candidate, and the addition of Tzipi Livni as co-chair did not help things much. Israel in 2015 is much more right-wing and religious than a decade or two prior. Demography has had a share in this (the natural increase in followers of the National Religious Party and ultra-Orthodox Jews is much higher than that of secular Jews). But the “wonders” of the “new Middle East” and the “Arab Spring,” including the second intifada, also had an effect.
No, the game isn’t over yet. Someday it will be possible to change Israel’s government, but for that the left will have to equip itself with a real “Mr. Security” — a candidate with a strong security background. Only two such persons from the left took over the government in the last 25 years: Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak. Both were former chiefs of staff. In the current era, Netanyahu operates a predatory propagandist political machine that neutralizes any such potential threat. The last was former Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi. Ashkenazi is now waiting for the decision of the legal adviser to the government; the latter is expected to close the case against him. When that happens, Ashkenazi is expected almost overnight to become the Great White Hope of the center-left. Another in a series of hopefuls who usually turn into false hopes on their way up.


Wednesday, 11 March 2015

End of Iran Nuclear Deal

Would 'sunset' of nuclear deal end restrictions on Iran?

How the Nuclear Non - Proliferation Treaty would restrain Iran's actions in several ways after the terms of a prospective nuclear deal expire? Read on the blog.

News Edited By: KANWAL ABIDI 
                            *Political Analyst & Journalist
............................................................................................................................

Fans and foes of the nuclear talks with Iran are offering sharply divergent views of what the not-so-distant future will look like. 
To hear the Obama administration tell it, once Iran submits to rigid restrictions on its nuclear program for a decade or more, the country will still end up confined to a legal straitjacket. 
"Iran is forever forbidden from building a nuclear weapon," Secretary of State John Kerry told lawmakers at a Feb. 25 hearing. "That is the nature of membership in the Non-Proliferation Treaty which they are a member of."
Critics counter that the international nonproliferation architecture looks more like a loose shirt baggy enough to conceal a nuclear warhead.
“This deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Congress last week. “That's why this deal is so bad. It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.”
To help make sense of the debate, here’s a primer on the requirements — and limitations — of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that will continue to apply to Iran even after other restrictions "sunset."
What does it mean when the deal sunsets? Does that mean Iran can do what it wants after that?
No. Iran will be bound by the NPT Safeguards Agreement that it signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) back in 1974. That agreement requires Iran to agree to intrusive inspections aimed at verifying that Iran isn't diverting nuclear materials from its declared peaceful activities to a possible weapons program.
What if inspectors do find something suspect — what then?
That's what has critics so concerned. 
For the first few years of a deal, sanctions would be gradually lifted but would remain on the books, ready to be reinstated in full if Iran violates its commitments. Once Iran is back to being a member in good standing, however, sanctions would be removed and Iran could go back to building up its nuclear infrastructure — as long as it keeps the IAEA up to date.
"Safeguards are not intended to prevent a state from gaining nuclear weapons; what they’re intended to do is provide timely detection of diversion of a significant quantity of material," William Tobey of Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs told Al-Monitor. "So basically it’s an alarm bell if somebody tries to get a nuclear weapon, but it isn’t a barrier to it."
What would happen if the IAEA pulls that alarm bell? 
Once the IAEA detects a problem, it may have to visit a site, take and analyze samples, study the results and present its findings to the agency's Board of Governors. That board could then refer the matter to the UN Security Council, which would need to schedule a meeting before voting on any sanctions — which could then be vetoed by countries such as Russia and China.
After Iranian violations were first divulged in 2002, it took four years for the first UN sanctions to hit Tehran. Democrats who are on the fence about the talks and want a vote know that history — and they're worried.
"The question is, is there a timely way to enforce international resolve if Iran starts to deviate from its commitments? That's the issue. So that you can block it effectively on an economic front before they have acquired a nuclear weapon," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., told Al-Monitor. "There are ways that you can answer this, but to me you've got to have that nailed down in this agreement — you can't rely upon just the previous documents, because just the treaties themselves have not been effective."
What if Iran does have a covert program that it doesn't want the world to know about? 
Good question. The original NPT agreements were "limited to facilities and activities that have been declared by the government." But after revelations in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had been "clandestinely conducting a nuclear weapons program in parallel with its IAEA-inspected peaceful program," the Additional Protocol was created in 1997 that expanded inspectors' powers. It includes the ability to visit more facilities, conduct short-notice inspections and take environmental samples at declared and undeclared sites.
Think of it this way: While the Safeguards Agreement aims to prevent a "breakout" to the bomb, the Additional Protocol is focused on a "sneak out." 
Iran signed the Additional Protocol in 2003 but stopped adhering to it three years later. It has never ratified it.
Will Iran have to submit to that extra scrutiny?
It sure looks that way.
The Joint Plan of Action (JPA) agreed to in November 2013 requires Iran to: "Fully implement the agreed transparency measures and enhanced monitoring. Ratify and implement the Additional Protocol, consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Majlis (Iranian parliament)."
Some experts, however, point to Iran's failure to abide by such commitments in the past is cause for concern.
"This is an important issue because Iran has, in the past, agreed to implement the Additional Protocol and then revoked that agreement," Tobey said. "This is a provision that, in my view, must be seen to be believed."
It looks like inspectors will be able to probe both declared and undeclared aspects of the nuclear program far into the future. So why are negotiators worried about Iran's past activities? 
A key stumbling block for a deal remains Iran's failure to answer the IAEA's questions about "the possible military dimensions" of its nuclear program. The agency still has 12 questions — 11 of which remain unanswered — about activities that seem to indicate Iran has worked on creating an atom bomb.
The 2013 JPA requires Iran to "fully implement the agreed transparency measures and enhanced monitoring." But negotiators acknowledge that this issue is one of the toughest to resolve. 
"Is it worth blowing up a potential agreement in the name of forcing a confession?” one former US negotiator told The New York Times.
How does this affect future oversight?
Experts like Tobey argue that without a full accounting of past Iranian practices, the IAEA inspectors can't do their jobs. 
“If you don’t get to the bottom of those — if you don’t know who did what, where and when — you don’t have a baseline from which to monitor going forward,” Tobey said. “So the probability that the IAEA would be able to detect undeclared activity goes down.”
What’s the proper time to wait before treating Iran like any other non-nuclear state?
It depends who you ask. 
The Obama administration say it wants to be assured that Iran’s program is “exclusively peaceful” before the current restrictions and sanctions sunset. Recent reporting by the Associated Press and others suggests nuclear restrictions could start to be lifted in about a decade. President Barack Obama himself has talked of a number of years in the "double digits."
Others say a wholesale change of attitude in Tehran is in order first.
"Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things," Netanyahu told Congress. "First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel."
Isn't there a middle ground — one that's focused solely on the nuclear issue?
Tobey seems to think so.
"What we should be looking for is evidence of an Iranian strategic decision not to pursue nuclear weapons," he told Al-Monitor. "If we were assured that we knew exactly what they had done and that it has stopped, and were in a position to monitor that it was not recurring, that would give me some confidence.”
Some critics make the case that treating Iran like other "normal" actors could unravel the nonproliferation system. What's their argument?
In a word: trust.
If other countries in the region (cough, Saudi Arabia) see Iran start to ramp up its nuclear production, even if it's all above board, they may feel compelled to follow suit. Under the NPT, Iran could theoretically once again enrich uranium so that it gets within a couple months of being able to break out to a bomb, and its rivals may well decide that they can't afford to risk being left behind in the race to a bomb.
"The NPT is really a collection of different bargains, and one of the bargains is among non-nuclear weapons states that it would provide some transparency — some assurance — that one’s neighbors aren’t pursuing a nuclear weapon. So that means you don’t have to ramp up your program,” Tobey said.
 “It may be that some countries in the region say, 'OK, if in 10  years Iran can be two months away from a nuclear weapon, I’m going to put myself in the same position.' So then you’ve got the equivalent of a bunch of cowboys walking down the street with their hands poised just above their pistol ready to draw".

..................................the end...................... 

Editor's Note: KANWAL ABIDI

Whatever the end, the conclusion of the world will be "Nuclear Begets Doomsday"