Posts by SusanModaress:

    Deadline, Differences & Cautious Optimism

    September 30th, 2014

    Susan Modaress.

     

    Iran and the P5+1 wrapped up 9 days of intensive nuclear talks in New York on the sidelines of the 69th session of the United Nation’s General Assembly.

    “The remaining time for reaching an agreement is extremely short” –Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani, Press Conference, Sept. 2014. 

    The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany are in ongoing talks with Iran to reach a final agreement that would end the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear energy program. The two sides signed an interim deal ( the JPOA) in Geneva, last November. The agreement took effect on January 20 and expired six months later. In July, they agreed to extend the negotiations until November 24 amid differences over key issues.

    A deal would assure the west that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and would grant Tehran relief from crippling western sanctions. Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, leading Iran’s negotiating team arrived in New York almost a week before the President. His first meeting was with European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who chairs the six-power group that negotiates with Iran. Bilateral meetings between Zarif-EU & Arab counterparts followed.

    Zarif-Ashton

    “There are a lot of difficulties, this has been an issue that has been built up for the past 8 years, there has been little actual negotiations- so from enrichment to our heavy water reactor program to the illegal sanctions that have been imposed on Iran both bilaterally as well as multilaterally as well as the sanctions that have been imposed by the Security Council and also other elements that have been included in the Joint Plan of Action, which we adopted in Geneva including technical cooperation-because Iran has been denied access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and one of the commitments of 5+1 is to provide access to Iran so all of these issues need to be ironed out, on some of these issues we are closer to an agreement and on some its more difficult to reach an agreement”. -Iran’s Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, upon arriving in NY.

     ”I believe we are making progress….that said, there are still some very crucial decisions that need to be made…this is a very, very complicated negotiation, very technically detailed…I think we have made progress while we’ve been here during the U.N. General Assembly and many leaders and virtually every foreign minister of the P5+1 has had a bilateral with Iran, and it has helped to improve our understanding.” –Chief US Negotiator, Wendy Sherman, in VOAinterview .

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov echoed the sentiments seemingly shared by all the parties involved when talking to reporters; he expressed “cautious optimism” that a landmark deal can be reached before Nov.24, 2014.

    “We still have time….we will do our utmost to make sure that remaining small, but extremely important, issues be resolved in a way that is acceptable to all”. –Russia’s Foreign Minister,Sergei Lavrov to reporters at UN.

    “At no time as in the last few days have I heard a serious tone about the level of engagement and will to progress, I’ve been involved in negotiations during the last dozen years on and off whether European countries, bilateral or 5+1, today there is a serious intent which is evident to perceive  even through the words, and these words cant be privy of serious will, so we believe the serious will still exists.”- Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani at a Press Conference.

    However speaking at a gala dinner for Iranian-Americans the night before,  Rouhani hinted that an extension to the Nov. 24th deadline may be needed, when he said “I assure you, we will close the nuclear file if not sooner then later”.

    rouhani gala

    US Secretary of State John Kerry joined Zarif and Ashton for trilateral meetings on two consecutive days. While, these high level meetings seem to have become a norm, many on twitter and other social media sites see it as a breakthrough in Iran US relations. Last year was the first time Iran and the US held such high level meetings in over three decades.

    trilat

    photo (5)

    “It is not written in stone that this relationship between Iran and America must always be conflict-ridden and conflict driven, one day this will change but we must find the right time for this and the two governments are obliged to step by step lay the solid foundation to build a better future than the one we had in the past.” –Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani, Press Conference, Sept. 2014

    Next round of talks are scheduled to be held in 2 weeks, somewhere in Europe.

    Comments Off on Deadline, Differences & Cautious Optimism

    The Business of Private Showrooms in Tehran

    March 12th, 2014

     

    By Susan Modaress. 

     IMG_0290

    From the soaring majesty of the columns of Persepolis to the lacy stonework mosques and palaces that dot the countryside, to mosaic tile-work as intricate as cloisonne,  to rugs that glow like silken jewels, Iranians have long appreciated beauty. Food is not just dished out – it is artfully and attractively arranged.  Beauty is praised in poetry and literature – Hafez, Omar Khayaam, Rumi and Ferdowsi. Traditionally, every Persian bride was given a haft qalam – a cosmetic kit containing the seven essential items believed necessary to make her more attractive.

    Today Iranians continue to take a special interest in both their personal appearance and their surroundings, which at times has surprised the Internet. Tehran, which has, for some time, been known as the cosmetic surgery capital of the world, is also quickly becoming a fashion and interior design center.

    As Nazgol Fatemi, a Tehran based Interior Designer puts it, “I think the cosmetic surgery boom that began around ten to fifteen years ago [in Tehran] and is still going strong – especially in the area of rhinoplasty or nose jobs, illustrates how we began to focus on improving our faces. And from there, we branched out to the point to where almost all our friends got Botox injections and fillers, while the men were getting hair implants.  Everybody wanted to look better.  Then from there, we went to the clothing.  We’ve been very creative with the designs of our manteaus and jewelry to make us more attractive.”  From there, as Nazgol pointed out, it was a small step indeed to interior design.

    “So now,” she added, “our faces are pretty, our clothes are beautiful and we are ready to socialize with our friends.  In our culture, it’s very common to invite people into our homes, which, in turn, calls for a beautiful interior, and that is the reason why I think our furniture and interior design business has taken off the way it has.  There is a definite demand for it.”

    However, despite the obvious demand, opening a shop or boutique catering to fashion or interior design is a daunting task in modern Tehran.  There are numbers of obstacles to overcome, not the least of which are managing the high overhead while getting the business off the ground and the legal red tape involved in opening the shop in the first place.  As Nazgol observed, “opening and running a store is not an easy thing to do. First you have to rent a place and often the rent is too high.  Next, you have to obtain many permits, which can be oppressively complex.”

    Many women like Nazgol, circumvent those obstacles altogether by staging private showings, often in the comfort of their own home. “There’s an additional advantage to opening a private showroom – it allows you to handpick your clients”.

    Most costumers eagerly seek invitations to these showings and word-of-mouth recommendations, where they can relax with their friends, while leisurely shopping. “People want an opportunity to get together and socialize,” Nazgol pointed out.  “And when you consider that the only places in town in which they can do so are coffee shops and restaurants, you realize that there is a definite need for a different type of venue. Exhibitions offer a completely different, private environment in which people can look at the unusual and unique pieces being offered, while getting together with their friends and meeting new people with similar interests,” she added, maintaining that from the customers’ point of view, this was an additional reason for the growing popularity of the trend.  “The showings are fun – particularly in the Spring, around the time of Persian New Year, when there is usually an all-round festive atmosphere and Iranians buy new clothes for themselves and new furnishings for their homes in order to make them more attractive for guests”.

    Nazgol agrees that this year as Norouz, the Persian New Year approaches many in the country are struggling financially, mainly due to years of Western imposed economic sanctions. Iran’s official rate of inflation stands at 37 per cent. The official unemployment is at 10.3 per cent, according to Iran’s National Statistics Center. “The showrooms aren’t as crowded as they usually were, around this time, but I have no complaints, we get by.”

    Nazgol stresses that her business isn’t always about making sales. “Because I have a private showroom, many of my clients are people I know, so when I have an exhibition, especially around Norouz it’s also a chance for everyone to come and catch up, before the 2 week holidays starts”. Traditionally Nowruz is also a time of private celebrations, dinners, and visiting family and friends.

    The business has more or less been been a win-win situation for everyone involved.  Clever Iranian women have assessed the economic downturn and to some degree made it work for them, and in many cases provide a supplementary income for the household.

    “In some ways they’ve transformed a drawback into a benefit — not only for themselves and their customers, but also for aspiring young designers, who might otherwise never have the chance of showing their creations to a paying public, while the customers have a nice afternoon out with friends, complete with entertainment [the showing] and often, refreshments.”

    Nazgol’s showroom resembles a small  museum, filled with Persian and European furniture as well as some pieces from Iranian contemporary artists, but it’s also very comfortable and inviting. I did have my eyes on a clock sitting on the fireplace mantel, but I didn’t buy it, which was fine. After all I’d been invited to spend the afternoon with my good friend.

    Comments Off on The Business of Private Showrooms in Tehran

    Interview with Gary Sick on Future US-Iran Talks

    October 10th, 2013

    By Susan Modaress.

    Gary Sick Oct. 2, 2013 ©susanmodaress

    Gary Sick Oct. 2, 2013 ©susanmodaress

    The United States and Iran made diplomatic history on the sidelines of the 68th session of the U.N. General Assembly. The two sides agreed to restart negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program on October 15, when Iran will meet with the P5+1 group in Geneva. I recently sat down with Gary Sick, an Iran specialist who served on the National Security Council staffs of US Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan to talk about the challenges and opportunities in future Iran-US negotiations.  Below is my Q&A with Professor Sick.

    Gary Sick is a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Middle East Institute and an adjunct professor at the School of International and Public Affairs. Sick served on the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. He was the principal White House aide for Iran during the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the US embassy take-over in Iran. Sick is a captain (ret.) in the U.S. Navy, with service in the Persian Gulf, North Africa, and the Mediterranean. From 1982 to 1987, Sick served as deputy director for international affairs at the Ford Foundation, where he was responsible for programs relating to U.S. foreign policy. He is a member (emeritus) of the board of Human Rights Watch in New York and founding chair of its advisory committee on the Middle East and North Africa. He is the executive director of Gulf/2000, an international online research project on political, economic and security developments in the Persian Gulf, being conducted at Columbia University since 1993 with support from a number of major foundations. Sick was voted one of the top five teachers in 2009 at the School of International and Public Affairs. He is the author of All Fall Down: America’s Tragic Encounter With Iran (Random House 1985) and October Surprise: America’s Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan (Random House 1991).

     

    SM: Professor sick thank you for your time, it’s a pleasure to sit down with you.

    GS:   It’s a real pleasure to be here.

    SM: Well, It was a pretty eventful week in terms of US-Iran negotiations. What would the United States, in your opinion, have to do, what steps would the United States have to take from here on out to continue this presumable path to better ties?  

    GS: Well, they started that process very much. I mean, first of all, letting Mr Zarif sit down with the P5 +1 in New York, that was a major breakthrough that had never happened before. The Iranian Foreign Minister sitting down with the people who negotiate the nuclear thing. In the past American diplomats tended to run when they saw an Iranian diplomat. So now the fact that they would not only sit down but then Secretary of State apparently said, do you mind if we have a few words in private, and they spent 30 minutes in really serious conversation. That’s unheard of. This has not really happened since certainly before the revolution. So this is a real breakthrough. Then of course, in addition to all the speeches and everything else, the telephone call, because it was…whoever came up with the idea, it was President Obama who initiated the phone call. And again, the picture of the President of the United States sitting in the Oval Office picking up the phone to talk to the President of Iran, and signing off with “Khodahafez”, that was amazing. And so I would say that the United States did everything that it could be expected to do at the beginning. They showed a willingness. When Mr. Netanyahu [Israeli PM]  showed up and they had a meeting, the language, the rhetoric in that meeting, began to shift back toward where it had been before. He referred to Iranian regime; he began talking again about no option is off the table and all of this kind of thing, all of which grates on the Iranians. And I think they were really disappointed that he went back to use those old words. Basically a lot of this, is sort of show and tell at this point. It broke the ice. It showed that in fact some kind of a relationship between the two sides is feasible, but the test is in the eating and the first real test is going to be when they meet in Geneva on 15th October to really begin serious negotiation of the nuclear issue, and both sides will come, I think, with a proposal. And that’s when we’ll find out just how far each side is prepared to go. And so that…right now there’s reason to be more optimistic perhaps than we have been for, say, 34 years, but that isn’t saying very much because there wasn’t much to be optimistic about before.

    SM: The United States and Iran almost reached a deal back in 2003, however it fell through, how would you say things might be different, this time around?  

    GS : Well, two things have happened. Time has gone by. The cost of any kind of an agreement has gone up very substantially on both sides. The cost to Iran, the cost to the United States has gone up dramatically. But the other thing that has changed is that there’s a very different President in the United States. And that is…it’s stating the obvious, but President Obama is not either Bill Clinton or particularly George Bush because it was really the Bush Administration that they were trying to deal with starting in the 2001 period when things began to warm up. Iran at that point worked very closely with the United States in trying to set up a new government in Afghanistan. That was hugely important, which we know – Bush had his famous speech and identified Iran as the axis of evil. Basically undercutting everything that had just taken place. And then later on the Iranians came up and it was in fact Mr. Zarif and Mr. Rouhani who together came up with a proposal on the nuclear side, which is not very different from what they’re saying now, actually. I mean, the terms I think are going to be quite similar. In fact there was a memo circulated by the Iranians to the Americans in 2003 and then a proposal that was made in 2005 and in both cases the first one the United States never even read the memo, or never answered it, and the second case the American side showed not only no interest but they actually refused to accept the deal that had been worked out with the Europeans. We weren’t talking directly to Iran at that time. I don’t think that will happen again. We’re paying attention. The United States is listening to Iran. That doesn’t mean we’ll agree with Iran on everything and it certainly doesn’t mean that suddenly there’s going to be an explosion of love and kindness and all. I don’t see that. I do think, however, that if this meeting goes well in first Geneva and then perhaps Vienna with the IAEA, we will have something then to actually say there’s something concrete to show for this. And that’s where we are right now.

    SM: What was your opinion about Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the General Assembly. calling the Iranian President “A wolf in a sheep’s clothing” and etc.? 

    GS : Well, there’s an old story from the Cold War. People disagree about this and it may not even be true, but supposedly the Foreign Minister of, or the Ambassador of the Soviet Union at that time – this was at the time just before the fall of the Berlin Wall. And the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union is reputed to have said to either Henry Kissinger or to his successor that we’re going to do to you the worst thing that one country can do to another. Based on the Cold War, that was a scary thing to say. He said, “What’s that?” And he said, “We’re going to deprive you of an enemy”. And so the Soviet Union was saying, okay, your days of basically basing all of your strategy, all of your actions, everything that you do, on us, the Soviet Union as the enemy of all enemies, is going to end. And you’re going to have to think about what your purpose is, how you present yourself, what your objectives are without that organizing feature of having a nice, clear enemy. Potentially, based on the week that we’ve just had where I think Rouhani was far more successful than most- anybody expected. We have the situation from the Israeli point of view. They face the prospect of perhaps losing their best enemy, that the enemy of Iran which has been useful for fundraising, for identifying what their greater interests were, for mobilizing world opinion around their position, and all of these things. And also, to be fair, shoving aside the Palestinian issue. That whole business of having Iran to focus on is, in fact is at risk, it hasn’t happened yet, but it’s at risk of actually disappearing. And it seems to me that’s what Mr. Netanyahu was really talking about in his speech at the UN which basically was don’t believe it, don’t believe it, don’t believe it. Iran is still the enemy. It is the number one enemy. That was his message. And don’t believe anything else that you hear. That’s certainly what he would like to believe and a lot of people would and not just in Israel but in this country as well. The reception that he got on Capitol Hill was very warm. Perhaps not as forthcoming as he had hoped it to be but nevertheless warm. We shall see, because if in fact Iran and the United States find a way of bridging the gap and moving to a different situation, then that momentum will continue. If not, that will stop and we’ll be right back where we were before. So we’re at a very, very important turning point.

    SMWhat the Iranian nation wants to see come out of these talks is the lifting of sanctions, for them that’s one of the most important issues…

    A: Well it is, but I think the reality is that this is a two-sided game and so each side is going to say, okay, you go first and then I will come along and do my thing. And the other side will say, nope, that’s not acceptable. You go first and I will come along afterwards. So the initial stages of this, basically I would say that Iran, by Rouhani coming here and making the kind of speeches that he made, seeing the people that he saw, appointing Mr Zarif as his Foreign Minister and letting him meet with literally everybody who is anybody, in New York and Washington. Having done that, they are in effect – Iran was signaling we are ready. So we’re not saying you have to do everything first and we’ll come along. They’re saying we’re going to take the first step. We’re going to break the ice. And that was hard to do in terms of Iranian politics, but it’s not everything. To get concrete reactions, both sides are each going to have to do something themselves. And then in response the other two. And they can do it at the same time. So if Iran, for instance, I have suspect that in two weeks in the Geneva meeting Iran will propose, for instance, that they will stop all of their 20% enriched Uranium proposal understanding that the United States or the West will in fact provide them with the fuel plates that they need for the Teheran research reactor, which makes medical isotopes. That is a deal that has actually been proposed and- by the United States, in one case agreed to by Iran later, and I think is still very much on the table. So that’s the kind of thing that they could agree. So there could be that. The sanctions I think until additional steps are taken, that is a sort of sanction – that’s a sanction against Iran’s research reactor and medical isotopes. So there are people with cancer in Iran that would like to have that operating. So it seems to me that’s do-able and it could happen at roughly the same time. Iran would offer this, United States or the West would say, okay, we will make sure that you get the fuel plates that you need quickly. Other things are also possible. I mean, if Iran at the IAEA meeting for instance says to the organization, alright, you are free to visit the medical- the military facility at Parchin, that would be a huge statement of confidence building, and what the IAEA could do then is go and visit the place and if they give them a clean bill of health after their visit, that will remove a whole range of questions and issues which would then open up the possibility of revisiting the UN Security Council resolutions which are in existence. The sanctions themselves, maybe there would be some relief that was done. The President does have the capacity to basically- the executive orders that exist, he can sign his name and do away with some, not nearly all of them. So he might do that. But he’s got to be very careful because there are people in Washington, especially in the Congress, that are looking over his shoulder and saying, don’t give away anything until you get something really concrete in return. So- but at some stage he’s going to have to bite the bullet and say okay, I’m prepared to do this. When and how he will do that I don’t know but I think even a minor- I think the Europeans are more willing to do away…but the problem is the European sanctions don’t amount to anything. I mean, they sound big but in reality they’re not. I mean, there are a lot of European companies that would like to do more business with Iran but this is small potatoes in comparison to what Iran needs. It’s the banking system. I say that is America’s weapon of mass destruction against Iran, and it is having an enormous impact and I think they might be able to lift some aspects of it, sort of incrementally, but basically I think we’re going to have to get a little further down the line before the President will feel that he has enough in his hand to go in. And of course, as you know very well, President Obama is fighting a lot of other battles at the same time. I mean, this whole business of a government shutdown and the sequester that is going on where everybody’s budget is being cut, and then we’ve got a debt relief ceiling that is coming up just very shortly, you know, within weeks after this. So he’s going to be in outright warfare with the Congress during a good part of this time. So how much will he be willing to give Iran which is not popular on Capitol Hill? How much will he be willing to give up, knowing that he is in fact in this kind of a battle?

    SM: As you well know, there have been sanctions imposed on Iran prior to the nuclear issue for example on the country’s airline and aviation industry. Are there any indications on revisiting those cases? 

    GS:  Yes. Absolutely. And you can be sure that they won’t publicize it, but one of the first people through the door after the Rouhani speech and the sort of breaking of the ice was the Boeing Company who wants to sell aircraft engines to Iran. And they have some very good people in Washington who are making that case and that has been revisited in the past, and it is one of the things that can be done. The other thing of course which President Rouhani has started when he got back and that is to let airplanes fly back and forth, scheduled aircraft, airlines, back and forth between New York or Washington, the United States or Los Angeles more likely, and Iran. Basically because you’ve got this huge American community of Iranians, many of whom actually met with Rouhani during his visit. I don’t know if you were present but I was told that it was quite a remarkable success. And since these are in many cases people who fled Iran because of the revolution, the fact that they would come out and give him ovations and all is a pretty good sign that something really has changed. So if you basically get the American-Iranian community behind this – the problem is the Iranian community in this country which I’m sure you know better than I do, is hugely fractured. I mean, you have people who say that even being in the same room with these guys is like associating with evil. There are other people who are saying we need to forget the past and go on. There are other people who have economic interests, and they say forget all the politics, let’s just do business with each other. But they don’t agree with each other at all, and that has really gotten in the way because unlike Israel which has a very powerful lobby in this country, Iran doesn’t. And they need one. They badly need somebody to stand up and tell the American people who they are, who Iran is, and basically come out and make their voice heard.

    SM: I’d like to wrap up with Syria. Do you think that Syria could be an opportunity for collaboration between Iran and the US? 

    GS : You know, I think that President Obama sort of answered that question in his UN speech. He said that all nations are going to have to work together to make any kind of a political settlement with Syria, in Syria. And all nations includes Iran. He didn’t say that specifically but that was certainly the way I heard it. Iran, to my knowledge, has not received a formal invitation to Geneva 2. On the other hand, nobody else has either because it doesn’t exist yet. I mean, people are still talking about when to have it, whether to have it and then who gets to- who comes is another matter. I would bet that given what Obama said and the realities on the ground, that Iran will be at Geneva, too. Iran actually, in a peculiar way, because of its experience with Saddam Hussein and chemical weapons, is one of the most active countries that want to see chemical weapons ended, and that includes Assad’s chemical weapons and now that he has in fact embraced the Chemical Weapons Convention I think that’s something that the United States understands, that Iran can in fact be very useful in making sure that he keeps his promises. The same time, Iran’s concept of what they want in Syria from a political point of view is not necessarily with Assad staying there forever but to have a political settlement that in fact will protect all the different parties to the conflict and won’t end up in a civil war where everything collapses suddenly and you have really a crazy, radical Islamists coming in and taking over the government, which in many ways would be even worse than what we’ve got now. So that is basically as I understand it, that’s the US position, too. So basically we are sort of on the same page on both of these issues and those are the two crucial parts of- in my reading, Iran has the potential of playing a really constructive role. And there again, I think Iran is going to need to prove that they can play that constructive role. I think if they’re invited to Geneva 2 that they come and behave in a very constructive way that would in fact contribute to the outcome, the way they did in Afghanistan. And on the chemical weapons side, I think if they intervene with Assad and with the Syrians to make sure that the chemical weapons are located, destroyed, taken out of the country or whatever, if they co-operate actively in that process, people will see that, and that will- this, unlike the Bush Administration which basically just ignored all of these actions that Iran took, I think this administration will in fact look at them for their own value, and I think it will work. So yes, I think in fact Syria is an opportunity for collaboration, not a danger.

    SM: Professor Sick, thank you so much for your time and company.

    GS: Been a pleasure to talk to you.

     

    No Comments "

    A New Wave, A Handshake & A Phone Call

    September 29th, 2013

    By Susan Modaress.

    A new environment and a change of tone was the atmosphere of Hassan Rouhani’s debut visit as Iran’s new President to New York this week. Rouhani traveled from Tehran to take part in the 68th annual United Nations General Assembly and to kick start negotiations to resolve Iran’s long standing nuclear stand-off with the West, notably the United States.

    As expected, the hottest ticket at the UNGA was for Rouhani himself, who made his debut speech as Iran’s new President. He started with a message of “yes to peace and no to war” and put forth his WAVE proposal,  as in World Against Violence and Extremism. He echoed these messages throughout his five day trip, as he met with world leaders.

    His last day in New York ended with a press conference and told reporters his visit had exceeded expectations.

    However all week many had anticipated/obsessed there would be a face to face meeting between the Presidents of Iran and the US, or that the two men would spontaneously run into each other and shake hands while casually walking the crowded hallways of the United Nations. It never happened, despite both having addressed the UN General Assembly only hours apart.

    When asked about why he didn’t meet with his US counterpart Barack Obama during his stay, the Iranian President said that there simply wasn’t enough time.

    “In order to make this meeting come about and ensure that its conclusions would be solid, we felt in fact both sides that there wasn’t sufficient time, both sides were convinced as a result that the timetable we had was too short to plan a meeting of two Presidents,” he said.

    What we didn’t know at the press conference was that US president Barack Obama would soon talk on the phone with his Iranian counterpart, making diplomatic history.

    Shortly after leaving for the airport Hassan Rouhani sent this tweet to his followers:

    rouhani tweet

    As the tweet went viral, Iranians on Facebook and Twitter expressed overwhelming joy as tech-diplomacy unfolded before their eyes. Some said they were still waiting to see if the two presidents would “follow” each other.

    Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Foreign Minister after attending the P5+1 meeting. New York/Sept.26 ©susanmodaress

    Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s Foreign Minister after attending the P5+1 meeting. New York/Sept.26 ©susanmodaress

    Our hand shake obsession didn’t stop at the two Presidents. When Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and US Secretary of State John Kerry sat side by side at the P5+1 meeting, marking the highest-level talks between the US and Iran in decades, the first question asked was “did they shake hands?”

    “It’s an official meeting, everyone shakes hands,” said Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister.

    Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister talking to the media minutes after P5+1 meeting with Iran. Sept. 26, 2013

    Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister talking to the media minutes after P5+1 meeting with Iran. Sept. 26, 2013

    The Iranian president had based his campaign on transparency not only with the International Community but with the Iranian nation as well.

    What many Iranians want to see come out of talks with the West is the easing of sanctions imposed on the country. During his address to the UN General Assembly Rouhani called sanctions inhumane and unjust, a reference to western sanctions against Iran.
    “Contrary to the claims of those who pursue and impose them, it is not the states and the political elite that are targeted, but rather it is the common people who are victimized by these sanctions.”
    During his press conference when asked about Iran’s troubled economy back home, a blunt and open Rouhani said the didn’t know the numbers were that bad and has promised the Iranian nation to release a report after his first 100 days in office.
    “My government believes that while I am the president of Iran that all the figures should be provided to the people… fully, transparently, because I believe its necessary to build more confidence between the people and the government and to enable economists and other authorities in different sectors to be able to better plan and better coordinate for the future.”

    “What I see today is a little worse than what I said or thought or existed before, but we are all hopeful about the future; our social and economic problems can be resolved,” he added.

    US President Barack Obama mentioned Iran 26 times during his speech at the UNGA this year, often expressing strong willingness for diplomacy with Iran . The Iranian President said he was pleased with Washington‘s change of tone.

    For years the Iranian President’s motorcade would leave for the airport with what many would call another missed opportunity. After decades of much of the same, for the first time the departure sparked a sense of cautious optimism for charm diplomacy. The next few weeks will determine how effective these historic and diplomatic measures really were. “The Iranians are putting everything on the table, if there was ever a time for a breakthrough, it’s now,” said a western diplomat. “There’s no turning back.”

    Susan Modaress covered the 68th Annual United Nations General Assembly and its sidelines in New York.

    No Comments "

    Restoring Our Image At Home

    July 25th, 2013

     

     

    By Susan Modaress.

     

    In one year on average, almost 100,000 people in America are shot or killed with a gun, these include murders, assaults, suicides, accidents, or by police intervention, according to the Brady Campaign, the leading gun control advocacy organization in the United States.

    “If we look just in terms of 5 to 7 years we’re getting something close to a million people being impacted by gun violence in the United States,” says Jackie Hilly, Executive Director of New Yorkers’ Against Gun Violence.

    U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher . Among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, according to the Brady Campaign.

    “About 320 million guns are owned by civilians in the US, probably close to half the private firearms on the planet, so we are exceptionally armed in the US.” says Nicolas Johnson, Professor of Law at Fordham University.

    In January 2011 a gunman opened fire at a public gathering outside a grocery store in Arizona, killing six people including a nine-year-old girl and wounding at least 12 others. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was severely injured with a gunshot to the head. In July 2012 – a masked gunman opens fire at midnight, in a movie theater, killing 12 and injuring 58 in Aurora Colorado. Less than a month later a Gunman kills six people at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin before being shot dead by police.

    With the last two episodes, coming back to back many hoped it would ignite a national discussion about guns and gun violence. It did not. With the latest horrific shooting that happened in Newton, Connecticut, upon us stands another opportunity. Will we take it or move on?

    In 2008 President Barack Obama ran largely on the slogan of change and restoring America’s image abroad. Today four years later we have yet to address one of the biggest threats facing our nation, here at home.
    “It’s not only a national disgrace but a national tragedy.” Says Hilly.  If we look at the term of the next Obama presidency over the next four years based on past statistics 48,000 people will be killed in homicides involving guns.” she adds.

    The Century 16 movie theater in Aurora Colorado was located just 10 miles from the University of Denver where Barack Obama and Mitt Romney went head to head for the first Presidential debate. The TV debate also took place about 10 miles in the other direction from Columbine high school where the 1999 rampage claimed 13 lives. However neither the President or Mitt Romney or moderator Brian Learer made any mention of the events nor did they address the issue of gun violence.

    Should they have talked about it? Morally yes, but the question is would they have effectively talked about it? When there are no clear effective answer that’s sitting on the shelf waiting to be implemented and that’s what President Obama should focus on, an effective solution to an ongoing trend.

    “Every mass shooting that has happened in the last 10 years whether its Columbine or Virginia Tech or Northern Illinois University or Aurora has been involving assault weapons and has also involved high capacity magazines, so there is a common thread, which we should be focusing on, they are military weapons designed by the military for the military and they’ve just been made civilian by deleting a couple of features,” says Hilly.

    “If you look the AR15 which was the riffle used in Aurora, that particular riffle was developed by the US military after the Korean war and for the Vietnam war,” she adds.

    And yes we know the National Riffle Association is a powerful lobby in the United States. Founded in 1871 with the mission of creating rifle clubs comprised of mostly Civil War veterans to improve their marksmanship, today with some 4 million members and annual revenues of $228 million, it has more than two dozen branches, including one focused on voter outreach and another that promotes hunters’ rights. The group is credited with successfully lobbying for, and in some cases helping draft, Stand Your Ground laws and legislation that allows people to carry concealed weapons in public.

    According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ review of FEC data in the 2012 cycle, so far the NRA has funneled nearly half a million dollars’ worth of contributions to hundreds of congressmen. It is widely believed that due to the the NRA’s relentless work In March, 2004 the US Senate blocked an extension of the assault weapons ban. Repeated efforts since then to renew it have failed. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban barred the manufacture and import of a wide range of  semi-automatic weapons for use by civilians, including the AR-15 used by James Holmes in the Aurora shootings. The legislation also banned high-capacity magazines, which feed large numbers of bullets to a gun. The law had a time limit of 10 years.

    “The NRA has largely achieved its power through two very specific ways; one they are incredibly well funded, many gun manufacturers provide a lot of funding to the NRA and secondly they have very cleverly & falsely misrepresented the gun control debate,” says Richard A born former president of the Brady Campaign and the principal strategists behind the passage of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

    “The gun control debate is about stopping the flow of illegal guns to the criminal market, however what the NRA has argued is that we want to ban all guns.” says Aborn who is now president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City.
    He believes that the reason they have done that to keep their membership frightened.” Frightened that any bill passed will take away their guns.

    The NRA’s tactics to scare gun owners about the imminent threat to their arsenal since US President Barack Obama took office have contributed greatly to the industry’s growth. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation between 2008 and 2011, jobs in companies that make, distribute, and sell firearms and ammunition have grown 30%.

    The NSSF estimates that the industry’s “direct economic impact” doubled to $13.6 billion in that time. Since 2010, Ruger and Smith & Wesson – America’s two biggest publicly traded guns makers – have enjoyed a 150% rise in stock market value. In May, Ruger’s first quarter earnings more than doubled .

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said that the number of guns made in the US rose 16% between 2010 and 2011 to 6.4 million guns, and the FBI expects to run 17.8 million firearm purchase background checks in 2012 – up 9 % from 2011. Moreover, over 50 firearms-related companies have given at least $14.8 million to NRA according to its list for a donor program that began in 2005. That was the year NRA lobbyists helped get a federal law passed that limits liability claims against gun makers.

    “In 1994 when the Assault Weapons Ban was passed by the US proved to be extraordinarily costly for democrats, after passing the bill House Speaker, Tom Foley, then Democratic House Speaker was unseated and lost his reelection bid in Washington State and the democrats lost the house of representatives.” says Johnson.

    As we track forward Democrats concluded that the issue cost Al Gore the presidency against George W. Bush in 2004, because the Clinton Administration was perceived to be unfriendly to gun owners.
    And while it’s unrealistic to believe that we will witness a sea of change in Washington on Gun Control Laws, perhaps we could start by talking to gun owners and members of the NRA.

    At the end of the day this debate is not about violating the second amendment or taking away everyone’s guns or about lawful citizens owning guns, its about illegal weapons, criminals getting guns and it’s about more Americans being killed every year with guns than all the soldiers we’ve lost in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. While we strive to restore our image abroad, we must also work to restore our values at home.

    No Comments "