Friday News Roundup - International
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-25/friday-news-roundup-international
Egyptians went to the polls in the country's first-ever free presidential elections. Leaders at a European summit clashed on how to save the eurozone economy. Al-Qaida said a suicide bomb attack that killed 96 soldiers in Yemen was revenge for what it called a U.S.-backed war on its followers. Abderrahim Foukara of Al Jazeera, Courtney Kube of NBC News and Markus Ziener of Handelsblatt join Diane for analysis of the week's top international news stories.
Guests
Abderrahim Foukara
Washington bureau chief of Al Jazeera Arabic.
Courtney Kube
national security producer for NBC News.
Markus Ziener
US correspondent, Handelsblatt.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
When it comes to Iran why is it that we do not hear any MSM host, guest or those negotiating mention that as a signatory to the Non Proliferation treaty they have the legal right to enrich uranium to 20%?
That Israel as a nation unwilling to sign the Non Proliferation treaty as well as the Israel lobby in the US congress push to stop the legal right of Iran to enrich is so unfair and absurd.
Can your guest discuss how Brazil and Turkey offered to help with the enrichment issue and they were turned down.
Best place to get accurate information about the situation with Iran. RACE FOR IRAN. Have asked the Rehm Team over and over again to have former Bush administration and middle east analyst Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett on your program to discuss the situation with Iran. Is there some roadblock to have them on your program? What is up with that?
About Euro-Bonds: as the EU treaty, the legal framework for all 27 countries, not just the 17 in the Euro zone, contains a no-bail-out clause and therefore would have to be changed AND ratified by all 27 EU members, how realistic is that, considering that potentially some of the countries' constitution would have to changed as well, and how long would that take?
Either way, the process would likely take too long to help the current crisis, and would be more geared at future crises, should the Euro survive the current one?
Kind regards, Kai Grathwohl
U.S. AND IRANIAN NEXT STEPS ON THE IRAN-TURKEY-BRAZIL NUCLEAR DEAL?
Today, Iranian representatives, accompanied by Brazilian and Turkish counterparts, met with the IAEA’s Director General, Yukiya Amano. The purpose of the meeting was to present a letter to Amano—as called for in the May 17, 2010 Joint Declaration by Iran, Turkey, and Brazil—formally notifying the IAEA of the Islamic Republic’s acceptance of the terms laid out in the Declaration, including its commitment to deposit 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium (LEU) in Turkey.
So what happens now? The Joint Declaration is, in its way, a complicated diplomatic undertaking. The odds that it will actually be executed in full seem relatively small, in our view. But, over the next several weeks, both the United States and Iran will be working to position themselves so that they are not blamed by important “audiences” if the deal falls apart. These “audiences” include domestic constituencies, but, even more significantly, they include critical players on the United Nations Security Council—e.g., Brazil, Turkey, and China.
cont
To avoid being perceived as not being able to take “yes” for an answer, will Washington be willing and able to pivot to some version of “yes, but…” with regard to the Brazil-Turkey nuclear deal? And, if it does make such a pivot, will the concerns raised by the United States as part of its “yes, but…” be perceived by key international constituencies as legitimate, or at least reasonable? Or, will U.S. concerns be seen either as poorly disguised “poison pills” meant to kill the Joint Declaration or as attempts to renegotiate the Declaration’s terms?
In this regard, if the United States offers “yes, but…”, with the matter of Iran’s continued enrichment to the near-20 percent level as its principal concern, that position might attract at least some international support, given that a number of non-Western countries question why Iran would need to continue enriching at this higher level if the basic issue of refueling the TRR had been addressed. (In writing this, we recognize the legal argument that Iran has a right to enrich up to this level; we are making a fundamentally political point here.)
On the other hand, if the United States offers “yes, but…” and focuses on increasing the quantity of LEU to be shipped out of Iran as its main concern, that is more likely to be perceived by key countries as an attempt to renegotiate the deal—and would almost certainly be rejected by the Iranians. Indeed, if Washington proceeds in this way, it confirms our hypothesis that the Obama Administration is, in fact, not interested in finding a way to make the Brazil-Turkey deal work.
Once the Vienna Group has responded to the Iranian letter, what will Tehran do? Even if the United States behaves in “provocative” ways, will Iranian negotiators still be authorized to sit down with representatives from the Vienna Group parties to discuss details of the Joint Declaration and its implementation? How will those negotiators (be perceived to) handle their discussions with the Vienna Group? And—assuming that the United States does not go ahead and ram a new sanctions resolution through the Security Council during the next month—will Iran actually transfer 1,200 kilograms of LEU to Turkey, as specified in the Joint Declaration?
How these questions get answered during the next few weeks will largely determine who “wins” and who “loses” from the Brazil-Turkey nuclear deal.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
So if Pakistan or Iraq applied the same standards of holding those who are responsible in say the U.S. for killing innocent people in their own countries. And say a U.S. citizen helped Pakistan or Iraqi military forces with strategic information about the location or movements of those in the U.S. responsible for the deaths of innocent people in those countries....what would happen to that U.S. citizen?
One major problem with the drone strikes in Pakistan is that we don't even KNOW who we're killing. The White House had admitted this in public statements. How is this in any way acceptable conduct for The United States?
When you go to the IAEA's website you can read many letters from leaders and other officials of middle east nations who have been deeply concerned for decades about Israel's undeclared and un inspected massive stockpiles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. That Israel's past and continued refusal to sign the very Non Proliferation treaty that they want their neighbors to abide by is a real threat to peace in the middle east.
Do you think we will ever witness pressure on Israel to sign the NPT?
These repeaters (reporters) play to the American audience. They use terms like feels, may, etc... to build a perception of what's going on in the Muslim world. Facts are rare. The only friends we have in the Muslim world are the ones we pay off or bully! American foreign policy is run be the very people who fund radical Islam! The policy if you read white papers out of the CFR is to radicalizing the Muslim world! There is a great culling between two civilizations through war as the criminal private central bankers collapses the West's economies for their New World Order papa Bush pushed for!
Had an American citizen been helping the German secret service to assassinate people in the USA without the
permission or knowledge of the US government, do you think Hillary Clinton would have defended him as having done
nothing wrong? Of course not. So she should stop interfering when Pakistan punishes Shakil Afridi for that same act
of treason.
As long as you cannot guarantee the Russians an unfettered access to a deep port in the Mediterranean (like Assad gives them in Tartus), the Russians will not abandon Assad.
This is their only port that has access to major trade routes and open all year long.
This is a Russian strategic asset that right now is Assad's best insurance policy.
Also, let us not ignore the elephant in the room.
If Assad is attacked militarily (by anyone), you can rest assured that Scud missiles will start flying across the Syrian-Israeli Border (That is what Saddam tried to do in 1991).
Unlike the first gulf war, Israel will not sit idling by, probably spinning the entire Mid-East into a regional war (who knows where Egypt will stand). A war in this oil producing region that will include Iran will not be very good to World's economy (and Obama's re-election prospects), to put it mildly.