SUMMARY:North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, has announced he will no longer abide by a moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile tests. With direct talks between North Korea and the Trump administration stalled, Kim also warned the people of his country about a “long confrontation” with the United States. The RAND Corporation’s Naoko Aoki joins Nick Schifrin to discuss.
SUMMARY: Over the past week, the difficult relationship between the U.S. and Iran has become even more strained. The Trump administration warned of severe consequences for any Iranian aggression, while Iran has threatened to exceed limits on its nuclear program. On Tuesday, Saudi Arabia said rebels in Yemen believed to be backed by Iran staged an attack. Judy Woodruff talks to Nick Schifrin for more.
SUMMARY:Recent reports are casting doubt on North Korea's intentions. Analysis of satellite photos of the country's facilities have led some to infer that the North is continuing to improve its capabilities. In addition, the U.S. intelligence community has reportedly concluded that they have no intention of giving up their nuclear weapons. John Yang talks with former State Department official Joel Wit
[38 North].
SUMMARY: The Trump administration considers North Korea's nuclear and missile programs the top threat to American national security. How much do we really know about their nuclear devices? In the second of a series, science correspondent Miles O'Brien reports on how analysts gauge North Korea's progress.
SUMMARY: How advanced is North Korea's nuclear weapons program? Just ask the few Western experts who have seen glimpses of the program and its evolution, like nuclear scientist Sig Hecker, who has visited seven times and given eye-opening access to their facilities. Science correspondent Miles O’Brien reports on how experts try to access the North’s capabilities.
SUMMARY: Ehud Barak, former Israeli Prime Minister, says Israel is still waiting for the Trump administration to offer its plan on how to move forward with the Palestinians. Barak joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the deadline for changing the location of the U.S. embassy, why he doesn’t think pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal would be helpful, and the threat for Israel of a post-war Syria.
SUMMARY:Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said at the U.N. Security Council that it's time for "painful" new sanctions to make North Korea give up its nuclear and missile programs. His statement comes amid rising tension between the Trump administration and the Asian nation, and word of a ballistic missile test. Judy Woodruff talks with former State Department officials John Merrill and Balbina Hwang.
SUMMARY: Many sweeping sanctions ended with the news that Iran's nuclear program has complied with a landmark agreement. But a new round of limited sanctions were announced Sunday in response to an October missile test that violated a United Nations ban. In addition, Iran released four Iranian-Americans in a trade for seven Iranians held in the U.S. Hari Sreenivasan reports.
HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):The new sanctions aimed at Iran’s ballistic missile program sparked fresh criticism from Tehran, after a weekend of milder words.
HOSSEIN JABERI ANSARI, Spokesman, Iranian Foreign Ministry (through interpreter): The Islamic republic of Iran, as it has made clear in the past, will respond to such acts of propaganda and harassment by following its legitimate missile program more seriously and boosting its defensive and national security capabilities.
HARI SREENIVASAN: The limited sanctions announced Sunday followed a missile test in October that violated a United Nations ban. Far more sweeping sanctions are ending, after Saturday’s announcement that Iran’s nuclear program has complied with a landmark agreement.
President Obama hailed the accord’s formal implementation in a Sunday appearance at the White House.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Under the nuclear deal that we, our allies and partners reached with Iran last year, Iran will not get its hands on a nuclear bomb.
HARI SREENIVASAN: Under the agreement, Iranian technicians removed the reactor core at the Arak nuclear site, effectively ending its production of plutonium for a possible weapon. The regime also cut the number of centrifuges at its Fordow and Natanz sites for enriching uranium. And it shipped tons of low-enriched uranium materials to Russia.
As the nuclear deal came to full power, Iran released four imprisoned Iranian-Americans. They include Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, and Pastor Saeed Abedini. Rezaian, Hekmati and Abedini are now undergoing physical and psychological evaluations at the U.S. military’s Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. Family members gathered there today to be reunited.
SUMMARY: The landmark Iran nuclear accord is soon due to be implemented fully, but renewed tensions between that country and the U.S. could affect the deal. The U.N. has said that recent ballistic missile tests violate prohibitions, prompting possible sanctions by the Obama administration. Judy Woodruff talks to Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): The prospects for a thaw in relations between the U.S. and Iran that some thought possible after the nuclear deal were again set back this week, after several flash points that showed the fundamental disagreements that remain.
The landmark nuclear accord signed in July between Iran and six world powers led by the United States is soon due to be implemented fully. Just this week, most of Iran’s stockpiles of low-enriched uranium were removed from the country by ship.
But there are renewed tensions between Iran and the U.S. that could affect the nuclear accord. Recent ballistic missile tests by Iran were said by the United Nations to violate prohibitions on missile testing. The Obama administration then drew up additional sanctions on Iran’s missile program.
But, last night, The Wall Street Journal reported the White House had delayed those sanctions for now. Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, said yesterday his nation wouldn’t only continue its missile development, but expand it.
And just last weekend, Iranian boats within the very tight quarters of the Straits of Hormuz, the gateway to the Persian Gulf, fired a rocket near the U.S. aircraft carrier Harry Truman, a move the U.S. called highly provocative. The carrier and its battle group, and a French naval vessel, were sailing into the Gulf to continue the bombardment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
As we begin the new year, where do things stand between the U.S. and Iran?
For that we turn to Karim Sadjadpour. He’s senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
SUMMARY: Former Deputy Secretary of State William Burns headed a secret negotiating team that met with high level Iranian representatives first in 2008 under President George W. Bush, and then in earnest in 2013, when the Obama and Rouhani governments revived the talks. Chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner interviews Burns about the deal and whether Iran will comply.
MARGARET WARNER (NewsHour): William Burns, thank you for joining us.
WILLIAM BURNS, Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State: It’s a pleasure to be with you.
MARGARET WARNER: Now that it’s clear that the president has at least the votes he needs to get this Iran deal through somehow, does it matter internationally whether he has to do it by veto or whether he is able to somehow finesse having a vote at all?
WILLIAM BURNS: Well, I think the more quickly this can be accomplished on the Hill, I think the better it is for the United States as a demonstration of our commitment to this agreement, and then to focus on implementation, which is going to be a real challenge for all of us.
MARGARET WARNER: Now, there are some Republican members of Congress who are talking already about, once the deal goes through, slapping new sanctions on Iran, unilateral ones that are non-nuclear-related.
Would that throw a monkey wrench in the works either on the Iranian or on the implementation side?
WILLIAM BURNS: It could, is the honest answer.
So, I think the real issue here is less new measures at this point, and it’s more the rigorous implementation of those provisions which already exist to push back against Iranian behavior, whether it’s support for terrorism in the region directly through proxies or human rights practices that we have continued to condemn.
MARGARET WARNER: So do you mean more rigorous than we are now?
WILLIAM BURNS:Yes, I think there are things that we can do working with others to try to interdict arms shipments to Hezbollah, as well as to Houthis in Yemen. I think we’re in a stronger position to do that now that we’re moving ahead with implementation of the nuclear agreement.
SUMMARY: Former U.S. arms control official Stephen Rademaker says the Iran nuclear agreement is a Faustian bargain that will end up empowering rather than weakening Iran in the end. He joins Gwen Ifill to discuss his objections and how he would amend the deal.
GWEN IFILL (NewsHour): Over the weekend, Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley became the 31st senator to announce his support for the Iran nuclear agreement. His backing puts President Obama three votes away from winning a veto-proof majority in the Senate. That would derail any resolutions disapproving the agreement.
Tonight, we continue our series of conversations on the Iran nuclear deal. Last time, we heard from a former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency who supports the agreement.
Tonight, we hear from an opponent. Stephen Rademaker was an assistant secretary of state for the Bureaus of Arms Control and International Security and Nonproliferation under President George W. Bush. He’s now a principal at the Podesta Group in Washington and an adviser to the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Thank you for joining us.
In a nutshell, what is your opposition to this deal as it is written now?
STEPHEN RADEMAKER, Former U.S. Arms Control Official: I believe there are number of major flaws with the agreement.
But the single most important one is that it basically locks in that Iran will be a threshold nuclear weapons state. That means that Iran is going to be able, in very short order, to produce nuclear weapons.
GWEN IFILL: Explain to people the difference between threshold, just a little definitional question, and actually having the weapons?
STEPHEN RADEMAKER:Well, being on the threshold means a country can be very, very close to actually having a nuclear weapon, but hasn’t actually produced one. The term is often used that they can be a screwdriver’s turn away from actually putting together a nuclear weapon.
And experts have said for years, for decades that if Iran is allowed to become a threshold nuclear weapon state, that will stimulate a cascade of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, which of course is a very dangerous region of the world. And there are other countries there that, if Iran was allowed to have that capability, they are going to want exactly that same capability.
SUMMARY: President Obama is now just one vote away from being able to veto legislation blocking approval of the Iranian nuclear deal. Two Senate Democrats, Chris Coons of Delaware and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, announced their support today. Sen. Bob Casey joins Judy Woodruff to discuss his stance.
SUMMARY: Among the American Jewish community, the Iran nuclear deal has triggered vigorous debate. While advocacy groups and politicians campaign for both sides of the issue, members of the Jewish community grapple with what’s best for Israel and for America. Chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner looks at why the deal has become such a contentious issue.
SUMMARY: Efraim Halevy, former director of Israel’s intelligence and special operations agency Mossad, is breaking with his country's government and public opinion to support the Iran nuclear agreement. He joins Judy Woodruff from Tel Aviv to discuss his stance.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Tonight, we continue our series of conversations on the agreement as part of our Deal or No Deal series.
Earlier this week, we heard from an Israeli scientist who was opposed to the deal.
This evening, we hear from the former head of Israel’s intelligence and special operations agency, the Mossad, Efraim Halevy, who is breaking with his country’s government and public opinion to support the agreement.
Mr. Halevy, thank you very much for being with us.
Given that you disagree with your government, why do you? What do you see in this agreement that makes you support it?
EFRAIM HALEVY, Former Director, Mossad: I believe this agreement closes the roads and blocks the road to Iranian nuclear military capabilities for at least a decade.
And I believe that the arrangements that have been agreed between the parties are such that give us a credible answer to the Iranian military threat, at least for a decade, if not longer.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You have said that this agreement is historic from the Iranian point of view. What did you mean by that?
EFRAIM HALEVY: Up to a couple of years ago, the Iranians refused to discuss their nuclear programs on the basis of a negotiation, international negotiations. They said that this was their sovereign right to do whatever they wished.
They have caved in. They have entered into a detailed discussion of their capabilities. They have agreed to an agreement which lists their various facilities in Iran. They have agreed to knocking out the first and foremost important element in it, their location in Arak, which is a plutogenic-producing facility in potential.
The core of this particular aspect is going to be destroyed. And that means that there will be no capability of the Iranians to ultimately weaponize whatever they are doing for the purposes of attacking anybody around the world for the next decade. If only for that element alone, I would say this is an agreement worthwhile accepting.
SUMMARY: Congress will vote next month on a measure to disapprove or block the Iran nuclear deal. But will opponents have enough votes? Gwen Ifill talks to chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner and political director Lisa Desjardins.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): The Associated Press reports today that under an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate one location it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms.
This comes about halfway through the 60-day period that Congress has to scrutinize the Iran nuclear deal with the U.S. and five other countries, a period in which we’re seeing a multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign. Both houses of Congress plan to vote next month on a measure to disapprove, or block, the deal. But opponents face a few hurdles. They first need 60 votes in the Senate. And then, if they get a disapproval bill to the President, he’s expected to veto it, meaning they would then need a two-third vote to override him.
Joining me now for a midway check up on all this, our chief foreign affairs correspondent, Margaret Warner, and our political director, Lisa Desjardins.
Welcome to you both.
So, Margaret, I will start with you.
Where do things stand right now?
MARGARET WARNER (NewsHour): Well, Judy, the White House has given up all hope that in fact this deal might be considered on the merits with no partisan consideration and they might actually get an endorsement or some Republicans.
So they are focused, as you said, on just making sure they have a rock-hard 34 votes to override a veto. And the President is right now working overtime, both from his vacation home in Martha’s Vineyard and before that in lots of meetings, to try to get at least 34 to come out publicly.
That said, right now, they only have 23 to 24 publicly declared supporters. But they did get a boost today when a conservative Democrat from Indiana, (Sen) Joe Donnelly, who had been on the fence, came out late today and said he would support the deal.
SUMMARY: Gary Samore helped establish the advocacy group United Against a Nuclear Iran in 2008, before serious negotiations began over the nation's nuclear program. When the nuclear deal was signed last month, the group offered a near-unanimous opposition to the pact. But Samore disagreed; satisfied with the agreement, he stepped down as the group's president. He joins Hari Sreenivasan for a conversation.
HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):Gary Samore helped establish the advocacy group United Against a Nuclear Iran in 2008, before serious negotiations had begun over Iran’s nuclear program. The goal? Strengthen sanctions against Tehran in the face of what Samore and others believed was a clandestine nuclear program.
From 2009 to 2013, Samore served as President Obama’s White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction, while serious talks between the so-called P5-plus-one and Iran were under way.
After leaving the White House, Samore went to the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. When the nuclear deal was signed with Iran last month, there was near-unanimous opposition to the pact from Samore’s fellow members of the anti-Iran-nuclear advocacy group. It is resuming a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign denouncing the deal.
But Samore’s judgment was different. He was satisfied with the Iran agreement, and he has now stepped down as the group’s president.
On Monday, former Connecticut Democratic and independent Senator Joseph Lieberman, a decided opponent of the Iran deal, was named as the chairman of United Against a Nuclear Iran organization.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the first Republican presidential debate, whether Vice President Joe Biden is considering a 2016 run and Sen. Chuck Schumer’s announcement that he won’t support the Iran nuclear deal.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): He’s (Trump) not a real candidate?
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times: No. He doesn’t have an ideology. He doesn’t have a belief system.
He has himself. And they went after him, the three excellent moderators. And he defended himself and I think he did fine. Probably 70 percent of Republicans disapprove of him. A lot of the things he said were astonishingly inappropriate, that he wouldn’t support the Republican Party nominee. That’s kind of a big one. He likes single-payer health system. That’s the first Republican that sort of likes that.
He is outside of all the categories, but he is a lord of self-esteem. And his main message is society is filled with losers, and they happen to be running it, and society has some winners who are being ignored. And if you’re a winner like me, we got to get rid of those losers.
And that’s an ideology that is not a political ideology. It is a narcissistic ideology. But I suspect the 20 percent who like him will continue to like him and like him even more. And so he will be hanging around there.
Among the real candidates, I thought Rubio did quite well. Carly Fiorina in the underdebate card did quite well. And John Kasich did quite well. And so I think those three helped themselves and they actually are viable candidates and make us rethink the race.
JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you size it up, Mark?
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist: I don’t know where to agree and where — no.
(LAUGHTER)
MARK SHIELDS: I agree. Donald Trump fills up the hall. There were 24 million people who watched. That’s more people than had ever watched a cable event, other than a sports event.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Huge numbers.
MARK SHIELDS: And this was a sports event. (IMHO, a boxing event)
Donald Trump indicated right at the outset he is going to run as Donald Trump. And I thought it was an indication of the magic he has established, the chemistry he has with Republican voters, that the only person on the stage, candidate who would even take a shot at him was Rand Paul.
All the others ducked him, John Kasich included, Jeb Bush included, when given opportunities. Who went after him? The three FOX moderators, who were tough. They really did. And I really think he made a serious mistake by going, retaliating, attacking Megyn Kelly. First of all…
JUDY WOODRUFF: When she asked him about his comments about women.
MARK SHIELDS: Asked him about women, his misogynist comments.
First of all, FOX News is the validator, it’s the gatekeeper for Republican, particularly conservative voters. And you don’t go after — it is not like you’re attacking Chuck Todd or Judy Woodruff or some of the liberal elite establishment. You’re attacking the mother church when you go after FOX.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let’s make a distinction here, please. I’m not part of the liberal media.
MARK SHIELDS: No, but I’m talking about by the definition of conservative America, where FOX really is the gatekeeper — I think you would agree, the gatekeeper and the validator.
And when he went after her, I think he made a serious mistake. I thought, as far as the others were concerned…
JUDY WOODRUFF: You don’t think he helped himself?
MARK SHIELDS: I think he hurt himself. I really do.
He’s a combination quite unlike anything I have ever seen before. I agree partially with David that it is sort of egotism and cynicism. Everybody is transactional. You believe nothing. Why do you give money to Democrats? You give money to Democrats because you are going to give them a call and they’re going to do what you want.
Everything. There’s no ideal. John Kennedy said he was an idealist without illusions. Donald Trump is a cynic without illusions. Nothing is on the level. You go into bankruptcy four times. You screw the investors. Hey, that’s the way it’s done now.
I just — I thought he came across really, by having taken on FOX News, and particularly Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, and particularly Megyn Kelly, I think he made a mistake.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's news, including the recent wave of mass shootings, selling the Iran nuclear deal to Congress, and whether Hillary Clinton needs to worry about the latest round of email allegations.
We know what politicians from the U.S. to Israel think about the Iran nuclear deal. How about asking some opponents of Iran’s regime?
The debate on the nuclear deal with Iran has revolved mainly around the geopolitics of the agreement. Is it good for the United States? Does the deal represent a defeat or a victory for the Islamic Republic? Does it make Israel more secure, or less? How will the Saudis respond? Will they pursue a nuclear program of their own? What will Washington do to placate its nervous allies in Riyadh (and other Gulf capitals) and Tel Aviv? What broader implications might the nuclear deal portend for US-Iranian relations, and for the regional politics of the Middle East?
These are hugely important questions, to be sure. But what does the nuclear agreement mean for internal Iranian politics? There’s been some excellent reporting on Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif’s diplomatic craftsmanship, which has inspired comparisons—arguably exalted—to Mohammad Mosaddeq, and speculation about whether Hassan Rouhani can parlay the nuclear deal into a domestic agenda, pursuing the kinds of reforms that the Iranians who voted for him in 2013 desperately crave and eagerly await.
But how does this historic development look from the perspective of Iran’s grassroots? We saw the jubilation in Iran’s streets, the euphoric popular reaction to the news of the deal. But these scenes lacked context. What do Iranian dissidents and civil society activists actually think of the nuclear deal? An in-depth report issued by the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran provides a refreshingly vivid sense of what such Iranians have to say, in their own words.
The report, High Hopes, Tempered Expectations: Views from Iran on the Nuclear Negotiations, features interviews with an array of Iranians—former political prisoners, filmmakers, political scientists, civil rights lawyers, playwrights, journalists, actors, economists, novelists, publishers, theater directors (some of them belonging to two or more of these categories, former political prisoner being the most common). In other words, these are not big fans of the Iranian government. Indeed, for personal security reasons some agreed to participate in the report only on condition of anonymity.
And the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran itself is anything but enthusiastic about the Islamic Republic: the vast majority of its reports, videos and activity document the regime’s brutal repression and condemn its systematic rights violations in unflinching terms.
This report thus provides a vital perspective, one that’s been largely absent in the global debate about the nuclear deal—and in some cases misrepresented (for example, by neoconservative pundits who claim the deal is a gift to the regime and sells the Iranian opposition short). This report reveals what the regime’s critics, opponents, and victims, inside the country, actually think about this critical issue.
Take a Breath and Demand our Rights
“All of the individuals interviewed felt sanctions and Iran’s international isolation have profoundly hurt Iranian society,” the report’s authors note, “negatively affecting all spheres of economic, political, and cultural life, with especially dire consequences for the lower socioeconomic strata.”
“We hope an agreement is reached and that it is signed, so that our nation can take a breath after all this prolonged pressure.”
—Shahla Lahiji (Publisher, Roshangaran and Women Studies Publishers)
“Problems caused by the sanctions are palpable in every home right now.”
—Ahmad Shirzad (university professor and former member of Parliament)
“[M]any of our patients have problems obtaining their medication and medications are expensive. … [M]any of our passenger airplanes have … no repair facilities … and we can’t [get] spare parts.”
—Abbas Ghaffari (film director)
“[An agreement] will have its first impact on society’s collective mental state. While many predict this might be short-lived … the psychological impact of this victory in the different sectors of the society will definitely not be short-lived. Such a positive impact can even move people to take action to improve their conditions.”
—a journalist in Tehran and former political prisoner (anonymous)
“If we reach an agreement, good opportunities in every area will definitely develop, and we can demand our rights as human beings.”
—Mahmoud Dolatabadi (author)
“[Failed negotiations] would cause terrible damage to the people and to social, cultural, political, and economic activities. The highest cost imposed by the sanctions is paid by the people, particularly the low-income and vulnerable groups.”
—Fakhrossadat Mohtashamipour (civil society activist and wife of a political prisoner)
“[Failure to reach a deal will result in] an intensification of anti-West political tendencies in Iran [which] will help the overall anti-Western currents in the region, even if indirectly.”
—a civil rights lawyer in Tehran (anonymous)
“Social hopelessness would increase drastically [if the agreement fell through]. People would once again lose their motivation for reforms. … The failure of the negotiations would equal the failure of moderates and the strengthening of the radical camp. … The atmosphere for cultural activities and journalism would become tremendously more difficult. … [A] continuation of sanctions would place the country in a defensive mode … [and] the domestic security organs would increasingly pressure the media and journalists in order to silence any voices of dissent.”
—a journalist in Tehran and former political prisoner (anonymous)
This last comment echoes the sentiments of Akbar Ganji, one of Iran’s leading democratic dissidents who almost died on a hunger strike behind bars. “As a former Iranian political prisoner who spent six years in the Islamic Republic’s jails and whose writings have been banned in Iran, I support the [nuclear] agreement,” he has written. Reaching a nuclear deal, he argued, would “gradually remove the warlike and securitized environment from Iran.” The Iranian political scientist Sadegh Zibakalam recently made a similar point.
No More Excuses
61 percent of the respondents believe that reaching a deal on the nuclear issue “should facilitate progress toward greater rights and liberties” and that “the nation’s attention, previously monopolized by the negotiations, could now turn to critical domestic issues, among them, the state of basic freedoms in Iran,” according to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.
That is, on the real issues in Iran. Or, to use an old-fashioned phrase, removing the nuclear issue—and the concomitant economic sanctions and threats of external military action—could “heighten the contradictions” within the Islamic Republic. To wit:
“There are a lot of things that have all been on a waiting list in the hope that first the nuclear issue would be settled.”
—Ahmad Shirzad (physics professor and former member of Parliament)
“After the topic of nuclear negotiations dims, [Rouhani] will have to focus on human rights and civil rights, which were parts of [his] initial programs. … Cultural and political issues must be addressed side by side with economic issues.”
—Issa Saharkhiz (journalist and former political prisoner)
“Following the nuclear and economic issues, the Rouhani administration will have to tackle the issue of political freedom. Political parties, universities, and the media will be serious demands Mr. Rouhani will have to face, and he will have to take visible steps and present them to public opinion. … [Priorities must include] the serious pursuit of citizenship rights.”
—a journalist in Iran (anonymous)
‘Necessary Even if Not Sufficient’
The respondents interviewed for the report harbor no illusion that the nuclear agreement is a panacea that will magically end the regime’s human rights violations or produce democratic pluralism in Iran overnight. But they do believe, as the report’s authors note, that a resolution to the nuclear issue is “a necessary even if not sufficient requirement for any progress toward greater rights and liberties.”
“As a defense lawyer for individuals who are pursued or imprisoned for political reasons, my work will be positively impacted … and society will enjoy more freedom as a result. … Unlike those who believe that a decrease in foreign pressure would increase pressure inside the country, I don’t believe this.”
—Mohammad Saleh Nikbakht (lawyer)
“If the sanctions are lifted … another impact … I believe would [be] a big opening in the human rights discourse. … the human rights issue, God willing, will find more flexibility after this agreement … if the nuclear issue is resolved, [many other] issues will be influenced.”
—Massoud Shafiee (lawyer)
“Whether lame or legitimate, I hope that after a nuclear agreement there are no more excuses … and that it would be possible to expect, to demand things.”
—Hamid Amjad (playwright, theater director, and publisher in Tehran)
The report’s respondents voiced an array of perspectives on the likelihood of these demands actually materializing—some expressed deep skepticism, given the structure of power in the Islamic Republic, while others were more hopeful. Yet “[s]trong support for the nuclear negotiations and hope for an agreement was unanimous and unequivocal among all of the respondents, and was held regardless of the respondent’s expectations regarding the actual benefits of an accord,” the report’s authors note.
“It is incumbent upon the international community,” the report’s authors conclude, “to reinforce these voices of reason, patience, and hope, by similarly supporting the peaceful resolution of conflict with the Islamic Republic—and by doing everything it can in a post-deal environment to stand by the people of Iran in their efforts to achieve the most basic rights and freedoms.”
Indeed it is. Thanks to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, we have a much clearer sense of what some of these voices sound like.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including reactions to the Iran nuclear agreement, recent controversy over Planned Parenthood, the entrance of Gov. Scott Walker into the 2016 presidential campaign and more.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Next, to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Welcome to you, gentlemen. A lot to talk about this Friday.
Let’s start with Iran.
Mark, we just heard the secretary of state, John Kerry, what he had to say about this nuclear deal. What do you make of it?
MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist: I think the president summarized it very well. He said don’t let the unattainable perfect be the enemy of the obtainable good.
And I think this is obtainable good, the object being a nuclear — a non-nuclear Iran. And I think this guarantees at least for 10 years that there will be a non-nuclear Iran. It doesn’t change Iran’s — as the secretary pointed out, its conduct and what it does. And we hope that that does change. But this is about dealing with nuclear arms in a very troubled area.
And I think, in this sense, it’s a step, very — a positive step, and one that I think the President is at the top of his game, quite frankly, from Charleston to the press conference this week. I thought he was compelling in both cases.
JUDY WOODRUFF: David, what’s your take?
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:I’m extremely skeptical.
I start much more than Secretary Kerry, I think, with the belief that this is a theocratic, fascistic regime that wants to, A, be a big power in the Middle East, the dominant power in the region and spread a radically — radical version of sort of religious ideology. And so I think to give that regime first the $150 billion to up their funding for Hezbollah and other terrorist armies around the region is dangerous.
To legitimize their nuclear enrichment program is dangerous. To lift eventually the ban on conventional weapons, the embargo on the conventional weapons is dangerous. And to have a regime that — you know, the inspection regime, people are getting lost in the details. It is not a bad regime. I suspect it probably will delay the nuclear program, but it’s their country.
And if they’re ideologically motivated to build this weapon, and they have every incentive to want to do so, I assume they are going to find a way to keep these centrifuges going in some form, and get a breakout after the sanctions are lifted. So, for all those reasons, I think I’m quite skeptical of what has happened.
SUMMARY:New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the British election and its implications for the United States, the latest Republican candidates to launch 2016 campaigns, Hillary Clinton’s stance on immigration and the Senate’s passage of a bill requiring congressional review of an Iranian nuclear deal.
"JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Now, a bipartisan breakthrough to let Congress vote on a final nuclear deal with Iran. A compromise bill won committee approval today 19-0, and a presidential veto threat evaporated.
News of the compromise came as senators entered a briefing by Secretary of State John Kerry.
Tennessee Republican Bob Corker chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
SEN. BOB CORKER, (R) Tennessee: I believe Congress should play a role in ensuring that all the details that need to be in place are there, and that, on behalf of the American people, before the congressionally- mandated sanctions are lifted, that we on their behalf ensure that this is something that holds Iran accountable, is enforceable, and certainly is very transparent.
JUDY WOODRUFF: That was echoed by Corker’s opposite number on the committee, ranking Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland.
SEN. BEN CARDIN, (D) Maryland: I think this is the right way for Congress to be — to take up this issue. I think this is congressional prerogative and we’re the ones who imposed the sanctions. We’re the ones who are going to have to take it up for permanent changes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Under the compromise, Congress will have 30 days to review a final nuclear deal with Iran. If it disapproves the deal, the President gets 12 days to veto that action. Then, Congress has 10 days to try to override any veto.
But the congressional review period reverts to 60 days if a final agreement with Iran comes after July 9. That’s nine days past the negotiators’ deadline. Senate supporters have been working to make sure the measure would garner a veto-proof majority of 67 votes.
But the White House suggested today a veto is no longer in the cards.
JOSH EARNEST, White House Press Secretary: We have gone from a piece of legislation that the president would veto to a piece of legislation that’s undergone — that’s undergone substantial revision, such that it is now in a form of a compromise that the president would be willing to sign.
JUDY WOODRUFF: That set the stage for this afternoon’s unanimous vote in the Foreign Relations Committee, while, in Madrid, Spain:
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF, Foreign Minister, Iran: I think we are, in fact, close to an agreement.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Iran’s foreign minister announced talks on the final deal will begin April 21. But he insisted again on lifting economic sanctions all at once, something the U.S. has rejected.
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF: Whatever happens inside the U.S. and however they want to spin it, all the sanctions, economic and financial sanctions that have been imposed on Iran by the U.N., by the E.U. and by the United States must go in the first stage.
JUDY WOODRUFF: All of which suggests negotiators still have a way to go before there’s any agreement for Congress to review.
SUMMARY: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee reached an agreement to spell out the role of Congress in the event of an Iran nuclear agreement. How did they do it? Judy Woodruff gets insight and reaction from Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, plus analysis from chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner and political editor Lisa Desjardins.
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
