- About Us
- Use the IBR
- Grassroots
- Resources
- Initiatives
- Campaigns
- Accounting Campaign
- Airports Campaign
- Auto Campaign
- Cranes Campaign
- GAO Campaign
- Germany Campaign
- Hotels Campaign
- IRGC Campaign
- Lebanon Banking Campaign
- Luxury Campaign
- Port Authority Campaign
- Rial Currency Printing Campaign
- Shipping Campaign
- Shipping Sanctions Fraud
- SWIFT Campaign
- Tech & Telecom Campaign
- Tunneling & Construction Campaign
- UN Campaign
- Legislation
- Press
- Donate
UANI Advisory Board members are regularly featured in the media for their expertise on Iran's nuclear program.
Mar 08 2013
Ambassador Mark Wallace, Kristen Silverberg
"Last week in Almaty, Kazakhstan, Iran discussed its nuclear program with representatives from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany -- the so-called P5+1. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has no doubt been smiling ever since, and not just because the unproductive talks bought Iran yet more time to advance its nuclear program. Khamenei is likely smiling because in the longstanding game of diplomacy, economic warfare, and clandestine operations between the Iran and the West, Iran won the week. Iran's primary victory out of Kazakhstan was in obtaining an offer from the P5+1 to ease the economic sanctions that have been battering the Iranian economy as an interim step, rather than as a part of a comprehensive deal. Widely referred to as 'sanctions relief,' the Almaty proposal was leaked before talks even began, and described by the P5+1 as a 'confidence-building step.' 'Sanctions relief' can indeed be seen as a confidence-builder, but not in the way its proponents intended. In reality, the Kazakhstan offer simply allowed Iranian officials to effectively convey competence and the hope of improved economic conditions to their own people, just as the June 2013 presidential election approaches. At a time when Iran has suffered from worsening economic conditions including hyperinflation and an 80 percent currency devaluation, this is exactly what the regime was hoping to achieve. To be sure, the upcoming election will be illegitimate and result in Khamenei's hand-picked candidate assuming power. But even with that ultimate result determined, the regime is taking every step possible to ensure that the election proceeds smoothly and is not a repeat of 2009 -- when hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets in protest -- particularly given the lessons of the nearby Arab uprisings. In January, Khamenei made rare public comments demanding that Iranians honor the results of this year's election, stating that '[a]ll people should be careful that their remarks do not serve this desire of the enemy.' That followed numerous statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and others blaming Western sanctions for the deterioration of the Iranian economy. The ayatollah and his cronies are taking great pains to fight the narrative that their own incompetence, both in domestic policy and foreign policy, is responsible for the nation's current economic troubles. Unintentionally, the P5+1 played right in this propaganda effort with its offer of 'sanctions relief.' While nothing was accomplished in Kazakhstan diplomatically, Tehran held up the P5+1's offer as evidence that sanctions would soon be eased. Subsequently, the Iranian rial, which was recently trading at an all-time (semi-official) low of 40,000 to one dollar, rose in value to 33,000 to 1. Regime officials spoke effusively of the meeting, with spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast stating that '[a] positive atmosphere was created in the talks,' and that 'if this atmosphere prevails, an acceptable outcome for both parties may be reached.' The value of an unstable currency like the rial is about confidence, and the regime rather gamely used the talks to manipulate the rial and reassure its populace at a key political time. The P5+1 must learn from this manipulation and avoid complicity in further domestic victories by the regime. 'Sanctions relief' as a bargaining chip -- rather than as a key component of a comprehensive deal -- is also tremendously unhelpful to the effort to pressure corporations and other countries to pull out of Iran. Over the last five years, my NGO, United Against Nuclear Iran, has sought to compel companies around the world to end their Iran business. And while hundreds have cooperated and pulled out, some have only done so after considerable public pressure. A number continue to operate in Iran with impunity today. In the most difficult cases, we have had success appealing to a company's bottom line, and explaining that because of escalating sanctions, doing business in Iran is financially risky and will result in considerable losses. Unfortunately, developments such as what just happened in Kazakhstan give these companies less incentive to leave Iran, as they calculate that they can just wait the sanctions out. Rather than making half-baked offers of 'sanctions relief,' the P5+1 must make clear that absent substantive negotiations resulting in a comprehensive solution, sanctions will increase, and culminate in a full economic blockade of Iran that will cripple its economy. Unless meaningful progress occurs, the negotiators ought to say, there will be no 'relief' -- only escalation. In other words, if the regime continues to pursue a nuclear weapon, then it will be doing so at the expense of its economy -- and perhaps its grip on power over its people. And in the case that Iran continues using P5+1 talks to just stall for more time, like-minded countries should join Barack Obama in fulfilling Vice President Joe Biden's recent promise that 'big nations cannot bluff' when it comes to the military option. At this pont, the only side that is benefitting from the current negotiating process is Iran. That doesn't mean diplomacy shouldn't continue, but it does mean that future negotiations need to be based on substantive progress with real outcomes. It's time to recognize this, and never repeat the great mistake of Almaty."
Mar 05 2013
Irwin Cotler
"Nasrin Sotoudeh's arrest and conviction -- on vague and trumped up charges of 'propaganda against the regime' and 'acting against national security' -- are reflective of the criminalization of innocence in Iran in proceedings devoid of any due process or semblance of legality. This is yet another case-study of the assault on the rule of law in Iran. And so, the question becomes what can be done on her behalf and on behalf of other prisoners of conscience, let alone the victims of the massive Iranian assault on human rights. First, it is the duty of parliamentarians and others to expose, unmask, and condemn Iran's massive domestic repression -- what the great Soviet dissident Andre Sakharov called 'the mobilization of shame against the human rights violator.' The international preoccupation with the Iranian nuclear threat -- while understandable -- has had the effect of marginalizing, ignoring, or otherwise sanitizing the horrific human rights situation. Second, we must call for the unconditional and immediate release of all political prisoners, support the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, and continue to hold Iran accountable for its breach of international resolutions and Iran's own laws. Accordingly, I have organized with U.S. Senator Mark Kirk the Inter-Parliamentary Group for Human Rights in Iran to support the courageous men and women on the front lines of the struggle for human rights in Iran... However, there is clear evidence that denunciation and international pressure can have a positive effect. Nasrin Sotoudeh's sentence, for example, was commuted from eleven to six years as a result of international protest. We must therefore continue to advocate on her behalf until she is safe and free. It is our responsibility to stand with the people of Iran, to champion their case and cause, to let them know that the world is watching -- that they are not alone -- and that their just struggle for human rights and human dignity will prevail."
Feb 28 2013
Pauline Neville-Jones
"2013 looks like being a crunch year in Iran's relationship with the outside world - between a military and a negotiated outcome to her long running pursuit of nuclear capability... Working with United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), a non-partisan, US non-profit group, seeking to prevent a nuclear armed Iran, the UK based think tank, Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) has for the last year argued for a strengthening of the European sanctions regime against Iranian tankers. In a move advocated by UANI-ISD, the European Union in October banned the licensing and provision of technical services and spare parts for the Iranian maritime industry. As almost all vessels of the Iranian tanker fleet are fitted with European engines, this has impeded the safety certification of these engines. And without a safety certificate, access to international harbours has become next to impossible for Iranian tankers. Furthermore, as a result of Iranian oil being delivered on uninsured, uncertified tankers sailing flagless with unsafe engines, customers of Iranian oil are now demanding significant discounts... Economic sanctions incur significant economic losses for all parties. Provided they are successful, they nevertheless represent the least bad way forward in relation to Iran. And to give diplomacy a real chance of success, they have to be efficient and effective."
Feb 25 2013
Gary Milhollin
"Negotiators from the world’s major powers sit down with Iran this week for more talks on its nuclear program, just weeks after North Korea tested another nuclear weapon. If the connection between these two events isn’t obvious, it should be: North Korea’s nuclear saga is a cautionary tale for anyone attempting to bargain with the Islamic Republic. Back in the 1980s, when suspicions were first raised about North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, the country’s leadership was keen to distract attention with a show of clean hands. It joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, promised not to make the bomb and said it would report the whereabouts of all its nuclear material to international inspectors... The lesson from North Korea is that an interim agreement of this kind won’t work. In addition to leaving too much fuel in place that can be enriched to weapons grade, the proposed agreement inevitably renders legitimate what it doesn’t prohibit. If nuclear fuel, production or equipment is permitted, then it becomes Iran’s right. Once such a notion is accepted, the interim deal becomes the only one, because it dissipates the crisis atmosphere. The public starts thinking that things are safe, or at least safe enough, though they aren’t. The effect is to diminish the support for sanctions that was so difficult to win, and to make it almost impossible to reinstate these measures once it becomes clear that Iran is not taking the next steps, which -- just as with North Korea -- it won’t. Before making any halfway deal, U.S. and European diplomats should insist that Iran remove itself from the path that North Korea so easily followed. If Iran wants to convince the world that it has no desire to acquire nuclear weapons, then it should be willing to give up the means to make them. When the talks resume this week, let’s hope history isn’t forgotten."
Feb 21 2013
Bob Feferman
"January 27th, known as International Holocaust Remembrance Day, is the date that marks the liberation of Auschwitz. This year, to commemorate the occasion, President Obama said that the United States resolves '…to stay true to the principle of ‘Never Again.’ Now, as Iran races to develop nuclear weapons , we must ask ourselves the question: What have we done to live up to the words, 'Never Again'?... The CEO of the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), Ambassador Mark Wallace, said it most succinctly: 'We need to bring Iran to the point where it will have to choose between having the bomb or having a functioning economy.' Those of us at UANI regularly pressure companies to leave Iran, and advocate tougher sanctions against the regime. By visiting our website, Americans can take action, and inform the world’s bad actors that their irresponsible corporate behavior must stop. Experts have warned us that 2013 could be the year that Iran gets the bomb unless it is persuaded to end its race toward nuclear weapons. It will also be the year that we are put to the test: Have we truly learned the lessons of Auschwitz? Are we willing to take action on the words, “Never Again”? Let us commit to making this year, 2013, the year of 'Never Again,' and do whatever we can to economically pressure this brutal and dangerous regime to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons."
Search
Join us on