Iran’s nuclear deal and the US presidential election

 

Source: Al Monitor

September 4 2020

This week, the joint commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — that is, the remaining parties to the Iran nuclear deal (Iran, the European Union, Russia and China) — agreed that the United States could not initiate "snapback" sanctions on Iran because the Trump administration withdrew from the deal in May 2018.

The decision of the JCPOA signatories as well as the UN Security Council was a rebuke to US diplomacy on Iran.

With regard to the nuclear deal, not much has actually changed. Iran remains under brutal US sanctions, and the cat-and-mouse games between Iran and nuclear inspectors, who worry about access to the information about the status of Iran’s nuclear program, will probably continue.

What has changed, and not for the better, is that the Western rift on the nuclear deal means that next month Iran can buy weapons on the international arms market.

This is the uneasy state of affairs for now for the JCPOA, whose ultimate fate, in some new form, will only be decided after the US presidential election in November.

IAEA staves off inspection crisis

The United States had appealed to the UN Security Council in August to reimpose sanctions on Iran in order to stave off the expiration of a UN arms embargo on the Islamic Republic, which is set to expire in October.

The United States also noted a worrying report in June by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which oversees inspections of Iran’s nuclear programs, that said Iran had not allowed access or provided adequate answers regarding two sites that may have been "related to possible undeclared nuclear material and nuclear-related activities in Iran. This is adversely affecting the Agency’s ability to clarify and resolve the questions and thereby to provide credible assurance of the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities at these locations in Iran."

The IAEA’s concerns compelled its director general, Rafael Grossi, to travel to Iran to resolve the questions on access to the sites. A joint statement on Aug. 26, which was cheered by the EU and other parties, said, “Iran is voluntarily providing the IAEA with access to the two locations specified by the IAEA and facilitating the IAEA verification activities to resolve these issues.”

Nothing changes on US sanctions

The Trump administration’s "maximum pressure" on Iran is an us-or-them formulation — if another country buys Iranian oil, it will face US sanctions and risk losing access to the US market. No surprise that US allies and partners and most international companies prefer the US market, whatever their differences with Washington on Iran policy.

Iran oil exports were more than 2.1 million barrels per day and its full-year oil revenues $55 billion in 2017. Two years later, as a result of US sanctions, Iran’s exports fell to 651,000 barrels per day and revenues to $19 billion, according to OPEC.

The impact has been devastating for Iran’s economy, which had grown by 12.5% in 2016 (a huge boost from sanctions relief under the JCPOA) and 3.7% in 2017. Then came the Trump administration’s maximum pressure, compounded by COVID-19 and declining oil prices. Iran’s economy contracted by 5.4% in 2018 and 7.6% in 2019 and is projected to fall 6% in 2020, according to the IMF.

The EU has been unwilling or unable to implement a workaround to US sanctions, to the indignation of Iran’s rulers.

Russia weighs arms sales

So that brings us to the potential for Iran to reenter the international arms market as a buyer, the only tangible outcome of the past few weeks.

First up as potential seller is of course Russia, but what happens next may not be as transactional as Tehran might hope.

“The lifting of the arms embargo presents a challenge for Russia’s military cooperation with Iran,” Anton Mardasov explains. “There is an obvious tension between Moscow being interested in supplying Iran with defense equipment and Tehran’s wish to purchase offensive arms. Iran’s toxic reputation is another factor Russia has to take into account, provided that any sales of aircraft or missiles for fighter jets or warships might cause an outcry among both regional players and the United States. However, it is not unfathomable that the Kremlin would approve sales of offensive weapons to Iran, disregarding reputational concerns and possibly turning Russia into a besieged fortress, albeit without the old Soviet ideological baggage.”

The next Iran deal depends on the US election …

The fate of the Iranian nuclear deal now depends on the US election.

Iran is in no rush to renegotiate until it knows whom it will be dealing with the next four years.

No matter who wins, the approach of the next administration will determine whether the nuclear deal survives and if so in what form.

US President Donald Trump has said time and again that he is willing to negotiate a new nuclear deal with Iran. French President Emmanuel Macron tried to facilitate a meeting between Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the UN last year, but Rouhani wouldn’t do it.

In June, following the release of Michael White, an American who had been held in Iran for two years on charges of insulting Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Trump tweeted, “Thank you to Iran. Don’t wait until after US Election to make the Big deal. I’m going to win. You’ll make a better deal now!”

Rouhani, for his part, said he would negotiate with the United States only if the Trump administration apologizes and compensates Iran for losses from US policies of maximum pressure.

Adam Lucente reports that former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign website says that if he wins the election he will reenter the nuclear deal if Iran "returns to compliance … using hard-nosed diplomacy and support from our allies to strengthen and extend it, while more effectively pushing back against Iran’s other destabilizing activities.”

If Biden wins, he will likely have wide latitude to undo what he considers the wrongheaded policies of the current administration, which in his score includes abandoning the JCPOA. So, in theory, he could simply rejoin the deal by accepting an IAEA report of Iran’s "compliance."

But other questions might give pause to this otherwise straightforward approach. Would Biden simply end all of the post-2018 US sanctions — and expect nothing from Iran in return? And if Rouhani insisted on an apology and compensation from a Biden administration in exchange for talks, would Biden do so?

Time for a regional security track

The next phase of US-Iran engagement on a nuclear deal takes place on a different strategic landscape than 2015, when the JCPOA was finalized under the Barack Obama administration.

On the one hand, the wars in Yemen and Syria remain flashpoints for the United States and its partners and Iran, and Tehran has its proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Bahrain and elsewhere. More of the same.

On the other hand, and this is the good news, there is the Israel-UAE agreement, brokered by the Trump administration. The UAE is now the third Arab state — after Egypt and Jordan — to make peace with Israel. Other Arab states may follow.

Both Abu Dhabi and Jerusalem are close partners of the United States and hard-liners on Iran. They, and others in the region, felt left out of the Iran nuclear deal, and want to be consulted on the next round with Iran.

Ben Caspit writes here that while Biden is a tried and true friend of Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s anxiety revolves only around whether a Biden administration would resurrect the JCPOA, which he bitterly opposed.

In interviews with Al-Monitor, both Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer and UAE Ambassador Yousef Al-Otaiba offered suggestions for a new Iran nuclear deal based upon zero enrichment of uranium, which at high levels is a key step to weaponization.

The UAE’s nuclear deal with the United States involves no enrichment. Iran, however, insists that uranium enrichment is a "right."

As regional tensions drive conflict and proliferation, "regional security" will need to be part of the next round of talks. It wasn’t after the JCPOA, but it needs to be so now, including discussions about the safe use of civilian nuclear power.

Greek Shippers Threatened With Sanctions, Forced to Hand Over Iranian Oil Cargo to US, Report Says

 

Source: Sputnik

By Aleksandra Serebriakova

August 15 2020

Last year, the White House pledged to sanction any actor involved in purchase or transaction of Iranian oil, citing Tehran’s alleged support for militant groups in the region and its ballistic missile programme. Despite the threats, a number of countries still continued their oil business with Iran.

Washington has forced Greece-based shipowners to surrender their cargo of Iranian fuel to the US government or face sanctions from the Trump administration, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the confiscation.

The ships in question, reportedly owned by Greek Vienna LTD and Palermo SA, were said to be loaded with Iranian oil, despite the sanctions imposed on Tehran. According to the report, their owners “grew frightened” due to the threat of US sanctions that could target the shippers and their crews, potentially depriving them from access to US banks and dollar depositions.

After a US federal prosecutor filed a suit to seize the tankers, the shippers agreed to transfer the oil cargo to Greece’s Eurotankers and Denmark’s Maersk vessels. They were subsequently expected to arrive in Houston, and according to US President Donald Trump’s comments to the press, might have already come to the US port. If the oil cargo will be recovered from the court, the money from its sale will go to the US Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism Fund, the Department of Justice said in a press release. According to sources familiar with the transaction, the cargo has already been paid for by Venezuela.

The operation was confirmed by the US Justice Department, which said that oil cargo was confiscated from four Greek vessels: the Luna, the Bella, the Bering and the Pandi, which were heading to Venezuela. The development took place in international waters, with no physical presence of US authorities, insiders revealed, including one unnamed American governmental official. There was no personal communication between the owners of the ships and the US officials, the sources said.

© AP PHOTO / ERNESTO VARGAS
Iranian oil tanker Fortune is anchored at the dock of the El Palito refinery near Puerto Cabello, Venezuela, Monday, May 25, 2020

The DoJ thanked US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook for assisting the department and the Homeland Security office in the cargo’s confiscation. From his part, Hook argued that Iran was using “oil revenues to fund terrorism”.
“We have collapsed Iran’s oil sector through a significant sanctions regime, and we enforce our sanctions. We have warned the maritime community for two years of the dangers of moving Iranian oil,” the official alleged.

Following reports about the seizure of the four ships, which were initially alleged to be Iranian, the country’s Ambassador to Venezuela Hojat Soltani denied the claims, calling them “psychological warfare by the US propaganda machine”.

The US is set to target any actors, companies or countries which purchase Iranian oil or take parts in the transaction, accusing Tehran of supporting terrorist groups operating within the country. The Trump administration is also attempting to halt the Iranian nuclear programme and the development of ballistic missiles by Tehran. Recently, the US also introduced a proposed UN Security Council resolution that will call for an extension of the arms embargo on the country, which is set to expire in October.

The Iran-China 25-Year Plan: A Preliminary Assessment

Source: BESA

July 21 2020

By Ofira Seliktar and Farhad Rezaei

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The newly announced Iran-China 25 Year Comprehensive Partnership is unprecedented in its scope. It contains a “mystery clause” that gives China control over how Iran spends its resources, which could ultimately amount to Iran’s selling its sovereignty to Beijing. The close military collaboration between the countries also has major implications for the decades-long US domination of the Gulf and large stretches of the Indian Ocean.

On June 23, 2020, the Iranian government announced the Iran-China 25 Year Comprehensive Partnership. According to a leaked draft of the 18-page agreement, it amounts to an unprecedented economic, military, and technological collaboration between the two states.

Relations between Beijing and Tehran, which date back to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s “Pivot to the East“ policy, have blossomed under Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is pushing China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). According to China, the BRI aims to create a huge unified market in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa through massive investment in infrastructure, education, and technology. Critics view the BRI as a thinly disguised effort to achieve Chinese strategic and economic domination over a large swath of the globe.

Iran would serve as a regional hub for the BRI, giving China extraordinary leeway across a wide range of economic activity. This includes petrochemical production, renewable energy, civilian nuclear energy, high-speed railways, highways, subways, airports, and maritime connections. Among the projects mentioned is a railroad system that would link the eastern and western network of railroads as well as development of the Makran coastline on the Oman Sea, which is Iran’s outlet to the Indian Ocean. In the first stage, China has committed itself to develop the port of Jask, build industrial cities, and develop tourism in the Makran region. Beijing has promised to create three free trade zones—in Maku, Abadan, and the Gulf island of Kish—as a boost to the local economy.

A section of the draft agreement reveals an exceptionally high level of military cooperation between the two countries. This includes, among other things, shared development of defense industries, intelligence sharing, and joint military maneuvers. Earlier reports indicate that China and Iran have been working on a large arms deal timed to coincide with the ending of the UN Security Council arms embargo.

According to sources, China has promised to invest up to $400 billion over the duration of the agreement. In return, Iran would provide China with regular oil deliveries, allegedly at a considerable discount. The agreement also obliges Iran to use China’s fifth-generation telecommunication technology and internet platforms.

The benefits of this arrangement to China are clear. Beijing would accomplish its strategic shift to the Indo-Pacific region. China has already built a string of logistical station ports along the Indian Ocean to Djibouti and the Suez Canal. Dominating Iran would give China a side presence in the Gulf, notably through the port of Jask, which is just outside the Straits of Hormuz. Most of the world’s oil transits through that passage. Jask is also critical to the US, whose Fifth Fleet is headquartered in nearby Bahrain. A powerful Chinese presence there would brush away decades of American strategic domination of the Gulf and swaths of the Indian Ocean.

For the Iranians, who are operating under the severe pressure of American sanctions, the deal is a lifeline. The agreement states that both countries are determined to implement it “in the face of pressure from a third country,” an unmistakable reference to the US. Implied in this phraseology is a Chinese threat to work against the harsh sanctions imposed by the Trump administration.

The Kayhan newspaper, a mouthpiece for Ayatollah Khamenei, was quick to point out that China is big and strong enough to withstand American bullying. However, several analysts have asserted that the tough language—indeed, perhaps even the entire agreement—is more of a PR exercise, a “declaration of intent” by both countries to defy the US. These analysts note that many of the hundred-plus projects China has undertaken to construct may never come to fruition.

But some Iranian critics, including Ahmadinejad, believe the Tehran government has sold out Iran’s sovereignty to the Chinese. A little-noticed clause in the Document seems to bolster this claim. The paragraph states that China will “pay attention” (tovajoh nemayad) to the way Iran spends the proceeds from oil sales. Moreover, China expects Iran to use its oil receipts in an “optimal way” (estefadeye behineh)—a vague phrase, but one with a clear message.

China does not want Iran to spend its newly acquired money on the revolutionary export projects so beloved by the late Quds Force chief Qassem Soleimani. President Hassan Rouhani and FM Muhammad Javad Zarif, who negotiated the agreement and are both known for their dislike of the Revolutionary Guards, might have signaled to the Chinese that they should safeguard their investment by limiting the use of the oil proceeds.

Whatever its source, the “optimal way” clause points to a larger implication of the 25 Year Partnership. Stability is essential if China is to profit from its $400 billion investment, and Beijing is willing to put pressure on Iran to abstain from its foreign policy adventures.

It is not clear whether the Revolutionary Guards would oblige, however. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is a case in point. The signatories “expressed hope that the agreement would result in peace and stability in the region and the world”—but the Guards used the resources that became available after the lifting of sanctions to create the Shiite Liberation Army in Syria, prop up the Houthis who are fighting a Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, and develop a new generation of missiles and drones to create further mischief in the Middle East. China will not necessarily be able to stop the Guards from repeating such efforts.

View PDF

Ofira Seliktar is Professor Emerita at Gratz College, Pennsylvania and Farhad Rezaei is a professor of International Relations at York University in Toronto. They recently co-authored Iran, Revolution, and Proxy Wars (Palgrave Macmillan 2019).

US-Iran Conflict and Implications for US Policy: CRS

Source: CRS

May 8 2020

By Kenneth Katzman (Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs), Kathleen J. McInnis (Specialist in International Security), Clayton Thomas (Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs)

"Since May 2019, U.S.-Iran tensions have heightened significantly, and evolved into conflict after
U.S. military forces killed Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF) and one of Iran’s most important military commanders, in
a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad on January 3, 2020. The United States and Iran have appeared to be
on the brink of additional hostilities since, as attacks by Iran-backed groups on bases in Iraq

inhabited by U.S. forces have continued."

Click to Read

Iran Reportedly Sends Five Tankers to Venezuela Amid US Economic Blockade

Source: Sputnik

May 15 2020

By Tim Korso

Venezuela is suffering from an acute economic crisis that has been exacerbated by economic sanctions imposed against the country by the US in 2019, essentially crippling the nation's oil refineries among other things.

Five Iranian oil tankers are reportedly sailing towards Venezuela purportedly carrying fuel for the Latin American state, online media outlet Al-Masdar News reported citing maritime services' information. Three tankers, Fortune, Petunia, and Forest are currently crossing the Atlantic, while two more, Faxon and Clavel are crossing the Mediterranean Sea.

One monitoring service, Marine Traffic, however, indicates that only one of the ships, Forest, is heading towards South America without indicating the specific country, while the others are yet to announce their destination ports. It's also unclear what cargo are they carrying from the information provided by the maritime monitoring system.

Even if the tankers are heading towards Venezuela, they might face trouble because the US recently deployed three destroyers and a littoral combat ship, the USS Detroit, to the Caribbean Sea. The US Navy could potentially intercept the vessels if they receive such orders.

Both Venezuela and the US have of late been suffering due to the American sanctions, especially their oil industries. The Latin American state's refining capabilities have reportedly been crippled by the joint impact of sanctions and economic crisis, leading to fuel shortages.

US Special Representative for Venezuela Elliott Abrams earlier claimed that Tehran is supplying Caracas with equipment needed to restart the country's refineries in exchange for gold from Venezuelan reserves. However, Iran slammed the claims as "baseless" and, in turn, condemned Washington's attempts to destroy the Venezuelan economy and to topple its president, Nicolas Maduro. Tehran suggested that the accusations were made only to serve as a pretext for new sanctions against both countries.

Washington has been actively pressing the Venezuelan president to step down using sanctions against the country's economy as leverage. Maduro, however, refused to leave his post, surviving a coup attempt reportedly organised with aid from the US and a kidnapping attempt planned by American private military company Silvercorp. The US, however, denied any connection to Silvercorp's actions, despite Maduro accusing President Donald Trump of orchestrating the attempted kidnapping.

U.S. envoy threatens to trigger return of U.N. sanctions on Iran

Brian Hook, U.S. Special Representative for Iran, attends a news conference in London, Britain June 28, 2019. 

Source: Reuters

May 14 2020

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States publicly threatened on Wednesday to trigger a return of all United Nations sanctions on Iran if the U.N. Security Council does not extend an arms embargo on Tehran that is due to expire in October under the Iran nuclear deal.

U.S. special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook, confirmed the strategy two weeks after a U.S. official, speaking on condition anonymity, said the United States had told Britain, France and Germany of its plan.

Hook wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “one way or another” Washington would ensure the arms embargo remains. He said the United States has drafted a Security Council resolution and “will press ahead with diplomacy and build support.”

A resolution needs nine yes votes and no vetoes by Russia, China, the United States, France or Britain to be adopted by the 15-member Security Council. Russia has already signaled it is opposed to extending the arms embargo.

“If American diplomacy is frustrated by a veto, however, the U.S. retains the right to renew the arms embargo by other means,” Hook wrote, citing the ability of a party to the Iran nuclear deal to trigger a so-called snapback of all U.N. sanctions on Iran, which includes the arms embargo.

Tehran was given sanctions relief under a 2015 deal with the United States, Russia, China, Germany, Britain and France that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The deal allowed for a return of sanctions if Iran violated the deal.

U.S. President Donald Trump quit the agreement in 2018, saying the accord from Barack Obama’s presidency as “the worst deal ever.” But Washington argues it can trigger a return of U.N. sanctions because a 2015 Security Council resolution enshrining the deal still names the U.S. as a participant.

“This is ridiculous,” Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia told reporters on Tuesday. “They are not members, they have no right to trigger.”

Diplomats say the United States would likely face a tough, messy battle if it tries to spark a return of sanctions, though it was not immediately clear how or if a Security Council member could stop such a move.

Iran has breached several central limits of the deal, including on its stock of enriched uranium, in response to the U.S. withdrawal and Washington’s reimposition of sanctions that have slashed Iran’s oil exports. Britain, France and Germany are trying to save the deal, but have made little progress.

250 Major Energy Projects to Be Launched across Iran by Year-End

Source: IFPnews
May 5 2020

Iranian Energy Minister says 250 key water and electricity projects worth about $12 billion will get under way this year.

Reza Ardakanian made the comment on the sidelines of a Tuesday ceremony to inaugurate a number of electricity projects in Markazi Province through video conference.

Ardakanian said the projects in the central province are part of a program called “AB Iran”.

He added that in the third week of the implementation of this program six major water and electricity projects have been inaugurated in the province.

Referring to the current situation in the country and the spread of the coronavirus, Ardakanian said while the whole world is struggling with COVID-19, Iranians are involved in psychological and economic warfare too.

“We have no doubt the post-corona period will not be the same as before. Just as the post great war eras were not similar to the pre-war eras in history,” he underlined.

In February 2018, Ardakanian announced the Islamic Republic is self-sufficient in the area of power generation noting that the country is the top producer of electricity in West Asia.

He maintained that over 90 percent of power generation equipment including turbines and generators are currently built inside the country.

Hundreds of lawmakers urge Pompeo to take 'increased diplomatic action' to renew Iran arms embargo

Source: The Hill
May 4 2020
By Rebecca Kheel

Hundreds of House lawmakers in both parties are calling on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to take “increased diplomatic action” to renew a United Nations arms embargo on Iran set to expire in October.

“We write to urge increased diplomatic action by the United States to renew the expiring United Nations arms embargo against Iran and United Nations travel restrictions on those Iranian individuals involved with dangerous proliferation activities,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Pompeo obtained by The Hill ahead of its release.

“America must continue its longstanding, bipartisan leadership in order to limit Iran's destabilizing activities throughout the world,” they added. “We look forward to working with you to reauthorize these expiring U.N. restrictions, which are essential to protecting our national security and the American people.”

The letter was organized by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and committee ranking member Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas). As of Sunday, the letter has 384 signatures.

“Nearly every member of the U.S. House of Representatives is in agreement: Iran must not be allowed to buy or sell weapons,” McCaul said in a statement. “This isn’t a Republican or Democrat issue, or even just an American issue. We need to extend the U.N. arms embargo on Iran for the sake of international peace and security. I am proud the House is speaking with one voice to protect the world against Iran’s aggressive and destabilizing behavior.”

At issue is a U.N. Security Council resolution that was passed in 2015 in support of the nuclear deal between Iran and several world powers.

Under the resolution, an arms embargo on Iran, as well as an arms export ban, is set to lift Oct. 18. The resolution also said travel restrictions on officials and entities involved in Iran’s nuclear and missile programs will expire in October.

President Trump withdrew the United States from the nuclear deal in 2018 and has re-imposed harsh sanctions on Iran. The administration has also been urging the United Nations to renew the arms embargo and travel restrictions, warning that allowing the sanctions to expire will let Iran spread what it describes as a destabilizing activity.

But a renewal of the arms embargo is likely to meet opposition from Russia and China, which have veto power in the Security Council.

Pompeo and other officials have indicated in recent weeks they could take another step to force the issue: argue the United States remains a participant in the nuclear deal as defined by the Security Council resolution despite Trump having withdrawn from the agreement. Doing so could allow the United States to invoke a snapback of U.N. sanctions that were in place before the nuclear deal, extending the arms embargo and effectively killing the nuclear deal.

“U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 is unambiguous where the United States is a participant,” Pompeo said at a press briefing Wednesday. “We are going to make sure that come October of this year, the Iranians aren’t able to buy conventional weapons that they would be given what President Obama and Vice President Biden delivered to the world in that terrible deal.”

In a briefing Thursday, Brian Hook, the administration’s special envoy for Iran, argued the United States is still a party to the U.N. resolution because its name is explicitly mentioned in the text.

“There is no qualification in 2231 where ‘participant’ is defined in a way to require participation in the JCPOA. And if the drafters wanted to make the qualification, they could have, but they did not,” Hook said, using the acronym for the official name of the nuclear deal.

Hook added that the administration is "very focused" on negotiating a resolution to extend the arms embargo that will pass the Security Council.

"So we are well within our rights under a plain reading of 2231, but we are very hopeful about being able to renew the arms embargo," he said.

The Trump administration arguing it remains a participant is likely to irk the United States’ European allies, who continue to support the nuclear deal and view the administration’s argument as cherry-picking when to follow the deal to fit its agenda.

In the letter from House lawmakers, they urged Pompeo to work with “allies and like-minded partners” to renew the arms embargo.

“We urge you to work with allies and like-minded partners, including through a new United Nations Security Council resolution, to extend these provisions in order to prevent Iran from buying and selling weapons, while also working to increase accountability for violations of the existing embargo,” they wrote. “We also urge you to make clear to the international community that U.S. sanctions on Iranian arms transfers remain in place and will be fully enforced.”

The lawmakers also expressed concern about the expiring travel restrictions. Describing those subject to the restrictions as “some of Iran's most notorious individuals who have long violated U.N. proliferation and weapons restrictions,” the lawmakers said continuing to restrict their movement is “critical to our national security.”

They also urged Pompeo to take steps to expand who is covered by the travel restrictions, including adding new Quds Force leader Esmail Ghanni. Ghanni became commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force after a U.S. drone strike killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

“Additionally, enforcement of these travel bans is key,” the lawmakers wrote. “Former [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force] Commander Qassem Soleimani routinely flouted these U.N. travel restrictions, including visiting Russia to coordinate Russia's deadly intervention in Syria. We urge you to lead a campaign within the Security Council to expand this list and facilitate its full enforcement.”

With apparently fabricated nuclear documents, Netanyahu pushed the US towards war with Iran

Source: The Grayzone
April 29 2020
By Gareth Porter

An investigation of supposed Iranian nuclear documents presented in a dramatically staged Netanyahu press conference indicates they were an Israeli fabrication designed to trigger US military conflict with Iran.

President Donald Trump scrapped the nuclear deal with Iran and continued to risk war with Iran based on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim to have proven definitively that Iran was determined to manufacture nuclear weapons. Netanyahu not only spun Trump but much of the corporate media as well, duping them with the public unveiling of what he claimed was the entire secret Iranian “nuclear archive.”

In early April 2018, Netanyahu briefed Trump privately on the supposed Iranian nuclear archive and secured his promise to leave the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). That April 30, Netanyahu took the briefing to the public in a characteristically dramatic live performance in which he claimed Israel’s Mossad intelligence services had stolen Iran’s entire nuclear archive from Tehran. “You may well know that Iran’s leaders repeatedly deny ever pursuing nuclear weapons…” Netanyahu declared. “Well, tonight, I’m here to tell you one thing: Iran lied. Big time.”

However, an investigation of the supposed Iranian nuclear documents by The Grayzone reveals them to be the product of an Israeli disinformation operation that helped trigger the most serious threat of war since the conflict with Iran began nearly four decades ago. This investigation found multiple indications that the story of Mossad’s heist of 50,000 pages of secret nuclear files from Tehran was very likely an elaborate fiction and that the documents were fabricated by the Mossad itself.

According to the official Israeli version of events, the Iranians had gathered the nuclear documents from various locations and moved them to what Netanyahu himself described as “a dilapidated warehouse” in southern Tehran. Even assuming that Iran had secret documents demonstrating the development of nuclear weapons, the claim that top secret documents would be held in a nondescript and unguarded warehouse in Central Tehran is so unlikely that it should have raised immediate alarm bells about the story’s legitimacy.

Even more problematic was the claim by a Mossad official to Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman that Mossad knew not only in what warehouse its commandos would find the documents but precisely which safes to break into with a blowtorch. The official told Bergman the Mossad team had been guided by an intelligence asset to the few safes in the warehouse contained the binders with the most important documents. Netanyahu bragged publicly that “very few” Iranians knew the location of the archive; the Mossad official told Bergman “only a handful of people” knew.

But two former senior CIA official, both of whom had served as the agency’s top Middle East analyst, dismissed Netanyahu’s claims as lacking credibility in responses to a query from The Grayzone.

According to Paul Pillar, who was National Intelligence Officer for the region from 2001 to 2005, “Any source on the inside of the Iranian national security apparatus would be extremely valuable in Israeli eyes, and Israeli deliberations about the handling of that source’s information presumably would be biased in favor long-term protection of the source.” The Israeli story of how its spies located the documents “does seem fishy,” Pillar said, especially considering Israel’s obvious effort to derive maximum “political-diplomatic mileage” out of the “supposed revelation” of such a well-placed source.

Graham Fuller, a 27-year veteran of the CIA who served as National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia as well as Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, offered a similar assessment of the Israeli claim. “If the Israelis had such a sensitive source in Tehran,” Fuller commented, “they would not want to risk him.” Fuller concluded that the Israelis’ claim that they had accurate knowledge of which safes to crack is “dubious, and the whole thing may be somewhat fabricated.”

No proof of authenticity

Netanyahu’s April 30 slide show presented a series of purported Iranian documents containing sensational revelations that he pointed to as proof of his insistence that Iran had lied about its interest in manufacturing nuclear weapons. The visual aides included a file supposedly dating back to early 2000 or before that detailed various ways to achieve a plan to build five nuclear weapons by mid-2003.

Another document that generated widespread media interest was an alleged report on a discussion among leading Iranian scientists of a purported mid-2003 decision by Iran’s Defense Minister to separate an existing secret nuclear weapons program into overt and covert parts.

Left out of the media coverage of these “nuclear archive” documents was a simple fact that was highly inconvenient to Netanyahu: nothing about them offered a scintilla of evidence that they were genuine. For example, not one contained the official markings of the relevant Iranian agency.

Tariq Rauf, who was head of the Verification and Security Policy Coordination Office at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 2001 to 2011, told The Grayzone that these markings were practically ubiquitous on official Iranian files.

“Iran is a highly bureaucratized system,” Rauf explained. “Hence, one would expect a proper book-keeping system that would record incoming correspondence, with date received, action officer, department, circulation to additional relevant officials, proper letterhead, etc.”

But as Rauf noted, the “nuclear archive” documents that were published by the Washington Post bore no such evidence of Iranian government origin. Nor did they contain other markings to indicate their creation under the auspices of an Iranian government agency.

What those documents do have in common is the mark of a rubber stamp for a filing system showing numbers for a “record”, a “file” and a “ledger binder” — like the black binders that Netanyahu flashed to the cameras during his slideshow. But these could have easily been created by the Mossad and stamped on to the documents along with the appropriate Persian numbers.

Forensic confirmation of the documents’ authenticity would have required access to the original documents. But as Netanyahu noted in his April 30, 2018 slide show, the “original Iranian materials” were kept “in a very safe place” – implying that no one would be allowed to have any such access. 

 

Withholding access to outside experts

In fact, even the most pro-Israeli visitors to Tel Aviv have been denied access to the original documents. David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security and Olli Heinonen of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies – both stalwart defenders of the official Israeli line on Iranian nuclear policy – reported in October 2018 that they had been given only a “slide deck” showing reproductions or excerpts of the documents.

When a team of six specialists from Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs visited Israel in January 2019 for briefings on the archive, they too were offered only a cursory browse of the supposedly original documents. Harvard Professor Matthew Bunn recalled in an interview with this writer that the team had been shown one of the binders containing what were said to be original documents relating to Iran’s relations with the IAEA and had “paged through a bit of it.”

But they were shown no documents on Iran nuclear weapons work. As Bunn admitted, “We weren’t attempting to do any forensic analysis of these documents.”

Typically, it would be the job of the U.S. government and the IAEA to authenticate the documents. Oddly, the Belfer Center delegation reported that the U.S. government and the IAEA had each received only copies of the entire archive, not the original files. And the Israelis were in no hurry to provide the genuine articles: the IAEA did not receive a complete set of documents until November 2019, according to Bunn.

By then, Netanyahu had not only already accomplished the demolition of the Iran nuclear deal; he and Trump’s ferociously hawkish CIA-director Mike Pompeo had maneuvered the president into a policy of imminent confrontation with Tehran. 

The second coming of fake missile drawings

Among the documents Netanyahu flashed on the screen in his April 30, 2018 slide show was a schematic drawing of the missile reentry vehicle of an Iranian Shahab-3 missile, showing what was obviously supposed to represent a nuclear weapon inside.

  

Technical drawing from page 11 of David Albright, Olli Heinonen, and Andrea Stricker’s “Breaking Up and Reorienting Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program,” published by the Institute for Science and International Security on October 28, 2018.

This drawing was part of a set of eighteen technical drawings of the Shahab-3 reentry vehicle. These were found in a collection of documents secured over the course of several years between the Bush II and Obama administrations by an Iranian spy working for Germany’s BND intelligence service. Or so the Israeli official story went.

In 2013, however, a former senior German Foreign Office official named Karsten Voigt revealed to this writer that the documents had been initially provided to German intelligence by a member of the Mujaheddin E-Khalq (MEK).

The MEK is an exiled Iranian armed opposition organization that had operated under Saddam Hussein’s regime as a proxy against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. It went on to cooperate with the Israeli Mossad beginning in the 1990s, and enjoys a close relationship with Saudi Arabia as well. Today, numerous former US officials are on the MEK’s payroll, acting as de facto lobbyists for regime change in Iran.

Voigt recalled how senior BND officials warned him they did not consider the MEK source or the materials he provided to be credible. They were worried that the Bush administration intended to use the dodgy documents to justify an attack on Iran, just as it exploited the tall tales collected from Iraqi defector codenamed “Curveball” to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

As this writer first reported in 2010, the appearance of the “dunce-cap” shape of the Shahab-3 reentry vehicle in the drawings was a tell-tale sign that the documents were fabricated. Whoever drew those schematic images in 2003 was clearly under the false impression that Iran was relying on the Shahab-3 as its main deterrent force. After all, Iran had announced publicly in 2001 that the Shahab-3 was going into “serial production” and in 2003 that it was “operational.”

But those official claims by Iran were a ruse aimed primarily at deceiving Israel, which had threatened air attacks on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. In fact, Iran’s Defense Ministry was aware that the Shahab-3 did not have sufficient range to reach Israel.

According to Michael Elleman, the author of the most definitive account of the Iranian missile program, as early as 2000, Iran’s Defense Ministry had begun developing an improved version of the Shahab-3 with a reentry vehicle boasting a far more aerodynamic “triconic baby bottle” shape – not the “dunce-cap” of the original.

As Elleman told this writer, however, foreign intelligence agencies remained unaware of the new and improved Shahab missile with a very different shape until it took its first flight test in August 2004. Among the agencies kept in the dark about the new design was Israel’s Mossad. That explains why the false documents on redesigning the Shahab-3 – the earliest dates of which were in 2002, according to an unpublished internal IAEA document – showed a reentry vehicle design that Iran had already discarded.

The role of the MEK in passing the massive tranche of supposed secret Iranian nuclear documents to the BND and its hand-in-glove relationship with the Mossad leaves little room for doubt that the documents introduced to Western intelligence 2004 were, in fact, created by the Mossad.

For the Mossad, the MEK was a convenient unit for outsourcing negative press about Iran which it did not want attributed directly to Israeli intelligence. To enhance the MEK’S credibility in the eyes foreign media and intelligence agencies, Mossad passed the coordinates of Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility to the MEK in 2002. Later, it provided to the MEK personal information such as the passport number and home telephone number of Iranian physics professor Mohsen Fakhrizadh, whose name appeared in the nuclear documents, according to the co-authors of a best-selling Israeli book on the Mossad’s covert operations.

By trotting out the same discredited technical drawing depicting the wrong Iranian missile reentry vehicle – a trick he had previously deployed to create the original case for accusing Iran of covert nuclear weapons development – the Israeli prime minister showed how confident he was in his ability to hoodwink Washington and the Western corporate media.

Netanyahu’s multiple levels of deception have been remarkably successful, despite having relied on crude stunts that any diligent news organization should have seen through. Through his manipulation of foreign governments and media, he has been able to maneuver Donald Trump and the United States into a dangerous process of confrontation that has brought the US to the precipice of military conflict with Iran.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist who has covered national security policy since 2005 and was the recipient of Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2012.  His most recent book is The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis co-authored with John Kiriakou, just published in February.

Iran, Russia Reject US ‘Delusional’ Plan for JCPOA

Source: IFPnews

April 28 2020

The foreign ministers of Iran and Russia have dismissed the “delusional” US plan for the 2015 nuclear deal, under which Washington seeks to remain a participant state in the JCPOA for the purposes of restoring the UN sanctions on Iran.

In a telephone conversation on Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov talked about the latest political developments in Afghanistan and the ongoing efforts to establish reconciliation and political consensus in that country.

The Iranian and Russian ministers also held consultations about the US’ new delusional plan for the JCPOA, and dismissed it as rejected and impractical.

The reaction from Iran and Russian came after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he is preparing a legal argument that the US would remain a participant in the JCPOA –already renounced by the US president- as part of an intricate strategy to pressure the UN Security Council to extend an arms embargo on Tehran.

According to Pompeo’s plan, bound to be opposed by many of Washington’s European allies, the US would, in essence, claim it legally remains a “participant state” in the nuclear accord only for the purposes of invoking a “snapback” that would restore the UN sanctions on Iran that were in place before the nuclear deal.

Russia has already told American and European officials it is eager to resume conventional arms sales to Iran.

FALLOUT FROM THE TURKEY-IRAN-RUSSIA MEETING

Fallout from the Turkey-Iran-Russia meeting | The Jerusalem post http://m.jpost.com/International/Fallout-from-the-Turkey-Iran-Russia-meeting-549022 Shared by Indigo.

Iran, Energy hub for new Silk Road

http://www.irna.ir/en/News/82873343

Saudi crown prince warns of war with Iran if sanctions fail

http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/04/01/saudi-crown-prince-warns-of-war-with-iran-if-sanctions-fail/

https://www.tichyseinblick.de/daili-es-sentials/in-afrin-ist-europa-gefallen/

https://arcdigital.media/donald-trump-is-going-to-bomb-iran-5f29632fb25d

Iran Bans Use Of US Dollars In Trade

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-01/iran-bans-use-us-dollars-trade

U.S. threatens action against Iran after Russia U.N. veto

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-un/russia-vetoes-western-effort-to-call-out-iran-over-yemen-at-u-n-idUSKCN1GA2QT

Turkey's main opp. calls for regional meeting on Syria

http://aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/turkeys-main-opp-calls-for-regional-meeting-on-syria/1068753

Are Russia and Israel on a Collision Course Over Syria?

https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/02/19/are-russia-and-israel-on-a-collision-course-over-syria/

Green Beret given extension on removal case; former CIA spook no Trump fan; ISIS hits Baghdad

Πηγή: FT
By Paul McLeary with Adam Rawnsley

Feb 29 2016

Clinton at war. Hillary Clinton has said that her 2002 vote that opened the door for war in Iraq was a “mistake,” and one that went a long way toward her losing her party’s nomination for president in 2008. Nonetheless, in 2011 Clinton was one of the strongest voices in the Obama administration pushing for U.S. intervention in Libya to overthrow strongman Muammar Qaddafi, urging the president to add American warplanes to the European force that backed the rebels with air power. Clinton even pushed “for a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias, an effort never before confirmed,” the New York Times reports in a major two-part look at her role in the war, and how it may offer a glimpse into her temperament when it comes to big foreign-policy decisions.


Back in 2011, Martland, along with fellow Green Beret Capt. Daniel Quinn, roughed up a local Afghan police commander in Kunduz after their superiors allegedly ignored reports that the police commander repeatedly raped a boy he kept chained to his bed. Quinn has since left the Army, but Martland is fighting to stay in despite the service’s attempts to discharge him. In October, then-Army Secretary John McHugh agreed to postpone Martland’s discharge until the soldier could file an appeal. Originally, the Army had until March 1 to decide whether he can remain in the service, but now he has until May 1 to plead his case, and remain on active duty.

Army spokesperson Lt. Col. Jennifer R. Johnson emailed SitRep that the “extension was granted to allow consideration of his application to correct his records by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.” In English, this means that Martland’s attempts to have his record corrected over the Kunduz incident are essentially being given another hearing. Martland claims that despite the Afghan’s claims that he beat him up, all the U.S. soldiers did was roughly remove him from their shared base.

Attacks. The Islamic State conducted a series of spectacular attacks in Iraq on Sunday, killing dozens at a market in Baghdad and assaulting security forces on the edge of the city. The attacks show that despite being under increasing pressure by coalition aircraft and Iraqi forces, the terrorist group is still more than capable of reaching into the country’s capital city. Overall, six car bombs detonated in Abu Ghraib, and a double suicide bombing hit the Shiite district of Sadr City, killing at least 28 people.

The deluge. The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad dropped a pretty sobering warning on Sunday, saying the Mosul Dam in northern Iraq “faces a serious and unprecedented risk of catastrophic failure with little warning.” Stories about the dam have been circulating for some time, and earlier this month, FP’sKeith Johnson wrote up a bit about how the dam has “been considered a ticking time bomb. Constructed on top of gypsum, limestone, and other minerals that dissolve when in contact with water, the dam has been plagued by the threat of collapse since even before it began operations.”

But the war with the Islamic State has caused the Iraqi government to fall behind on the daily repairs the dam needs to function, putting the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis at serious risk. If the dam failed, the ISIS-held city of Mosul would face a wave of water almost 80 feet high within hours, while Baghdad itself — 400 miles downriver — would get hit with about 13 feet of water in the center of the city.

Before the court. It’s safe to say that the plan President Barack Obama recently unveiled to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and transfer dozens of detainees to the United States for eventual trial, didn’t find much support on Capitol Hill. But two cases coming before U.S. courts of men accused of supporting the Islamic State will be a real test for how terrorism cases are handled in domestic courts, the Wall Street Journalreports.

No order. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said during an interview Friday that if Republican front-runner Donald Trump won the presidency, U.S. troops would and should reject some of the ideas the candidate has been trumpeting on the campaign trail. Appearing on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Hayden said, “I would be incredibly concerned if a President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the way that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign.” When Maher asked about Trump’s promise to go after the families of ISIS members, Hayden responded, “God, no! Let me give you a punchline: If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.” Asked how that was possible, Hayden explained, “you are not required, in fact you’re required to not follow an unlawful order.”

Here we go on another week of SitRep, and thanks for clicking on through. As always, if you have any thoughts, announcements, tips, or national security-related events to share, please pass them along to SitRep HQ! Best way is to send them to: paul.mcleary@foreignpolicy.com or on Twitter: @paulmclearyor @arawnsley.

Syria

The recently-inked cessation of hostilities in Syria has cut down dramatically on the fighting as its enters its third day, but rebels sent a letter to the United Nations Sunday alleging 26 violations of the agreement in areas. Rebels claim Russia has bombed rebel groups abiding by the truce in those 26 areas and used cluster munitions, killing civilians. Russia’s defense ministry has yet to comment on the allegations and the Syrian military denies the,

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled Israel’s approval of the ceasefire in Syria, telling reporters that an end to the bloodshed is welcome but laying down two red lines regarding Iran and its Lebanese terror group proxy, Hezbollah. Netanyahu stated that Israel would not tolerate shipments of “advanced weaponry” to Hezbollah or the establishment of a “second terror front on the Golan Heights” along the Syrian border with Israel. In the past, Israel has reportedly carried out airstrikes against illicit weapons shipments to Hezbollah originating in Syria and struck Hezbollah targets on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights.

Israel’s Channel 2 carried a report on Sunday claiming that Iran is pulling all 2,500 of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fighters from Syria and leaving behind a 750-strong advisory footprint. The report comes on the heels of a recent assessment by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that Tehran “pulled a significant number of troops out” of Syria.

Iraq

Iraq’s Kurdistan Region Security Council is investigating reports that the Islamic State used chemical weapons near Sinjar on Thursday, Voice of America reports. Peshmerga troops there reported symptoms of nausea and vomiting following a rocket barrage from the Islamic State. Blood testing of peshmerga fighters in Iraq carried out by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has previously confirmed the use of chemical weapons by the Islamic State in Iraq.

Afghanistan

The Taliban have either captured, or are operating in, 10 of Helmand province’s 14 districts, and are knocking at the gates of the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah. And the Afghan official who is in charge of defending the province is the same man who handed over the area to the mujahideen in 1993, later fleeing the country and spending a decade in exile in Moscow.

Iran

Iranian arms researcher Galen Wright analyzed sensor footage released by Iran showing two drone strikes carried out by an Iranian Shahed-129 UAV in Syria, geolocating the strikes to the border between Idlib and Aleppo and Halasah village near Aleppo. The drone feed footage, released on Iranian television, shows a munition from an Iranian Shahed-129 hitting a handful of men in a field as well as a house in Halasah. The strikes would mark Iran’s entrance into the growing club of countries that have used armed drones in conflict alongside Iraq, Pakistan, and Nigeria just in the past year.

Europe

Latvia is asking for a troop commitment from NATO in order to hedge against growing Russian aggression in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, USA Todayreports. Latvian foreign minister Edgars Rinkevics said his country wants NATO “boots on the ground” there, along with the weaponry and equipment to go along with them. That might be a tall order for the Atlantic alliance, however, given the relatively tight defense budgets of NATO’s bigger powers. Latvia itself has increased defense spending as it worries about recent Russian mobilizations and exercises along its border with Russia.

JLENS

The world’s most troubled radar blimp just got more troubled. The Los Angeles Times reports that the annual report from the Defense Department’s office of Operational Test & Evaluation says that problems with the aerostat’s software “could result in some high priority radar targets not being processed and tracked.” The recently-disclosed problem comes on the heels of anearlier report showing that the radar system, designed to track incoming missiles, had trouble finding a gyrocopter flown by a Florida man onto the lawn of the U.S. Capitol building. JLENS captured the nation’s attention in October 2015 when it broke free from its tether and blew from Maryland into rural Pennsylvania, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake.

USAF

You can stop calling the Air Force’s new bomber the LRS-B (long range strike bomber) and start calling it the B-21. That’s the new name for the flying branch’s next generation stealth bomber, revealed alongside concept art for the plane on Friday by Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James. The bomber, a stealth flying wing design, looks much like its predecessor, the B-2 Spirit. Still missing, however, is a name for the B-21. Secretary James says she’s open to suggestions from airmen and women so send in your ideas.

Droneception

Israel’s Ynetnews.com flags a picture of what’s allegedly an Israeli Searcher drone flying over Syria. The drone is believed to be one of a number of Israeli Aircraft Industries Searcher UAVs which Israel sold to Russia as part of its program to kickstart a domestic drone industry of its own. At least one Russian-owned Israeli Searcher drone, re-dubbed “Forpost” by Russia, has crashed before when it was shot down over Ukraine in the spring of 2015.

China to build $2bn Iran-Pakistan natgas pipeline

Πηγή: Trade Arabia
April 12 2015

China plans to build a pipeline to transport natural gas from Iran to Pakistan in a move to alleviate the crippling burden of electricity shortage in Pakistan, a report said.

A deal is likely to be signed during the Chinese president’s visit to Islamabad this month, Pakistani officials were quoted as saying in the Tehran Times report.

Pakistan has been negotiating for months for China to build the Pakistani portion of the pipeline, which will cost up to $2 billion, according to the report.

“We’re building it,” Pakistani Petroleum Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi told The Wall Street Journal. “The process has started.”

Dubbed the “Peace Pipeline,” its 900-kilometre part from an Iranian gas field is complete and Pakistan is under pressure to complete its part of the scheme.

Pakistan hasn’t begun construction in light of threatened US sanctions for trading with Iran, the report said.

“This [Iran nuclear agreement] will help us in getting a few things which were coming into the way of the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline to be cleared and we will move forward,” Pakistan’s ambassador to Iran, Noor Muhammad Jadmani, was quoted in the report, which cited the official Iranian news agency Irna.

Pakistan is negotiating with China Petroleum Pipeline Bureau, a subsidiary of Chinese energy giant China National Petroleum Corporation, to build 700 kilometres of pipeline from the western Pakistani port of Gwadar to Nawabshah in the southern province of Sindh, where it will connect to Pakistan’s existing gas-distribution pipeline network.

The cost would be $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion for the pipeline, or $2 billion if an optional Liquefied Natural Gas terminal at Gwadar is included in the scheme. Under the deal, 85 per cent of the financing will be provided by a Chinese loan, with Pakistan coming up with the rest.

The remaining 50 miles (80 kilometres) will be built by Pakistan. The pipeline, which would take two years to build, would eventually supply Pakistan with enough gas to fuel 4,500 M of electricity generation.