Tag Archives: Iran Nuclear Deal

Netanyahu to discuss ‘bad’ Iran deal with Trump, Kerry stresses settlements

Benjamin Netanyahu

By Jeffrey Heller and Arshad Mohammed

JERUSALEM/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday he would discuss with Donald Trump the West’s “bad” nuclear deal with Iran after the U.S. president-elect enters the White House.

Speaking separately to a conference in Washington, Netanyahu and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry clashed over the Iran deal and Israel’s settlement construction on the occupied West Bank, which Kerry depicted as an obstacle to peace.

During the U.S. election campaign, Trump, a Republican, called last year’s nuclear pact a “disaster” and “the worst deal ever negotiated”. He has also said it would be hard to overturn an agreement enshrined in a U.N. resolution.

“Israel is committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. That has not changed and will not change. As far as President-elect Trump, I look forward to speaking to him about what to do about this bad deal,” Netanyahu told the Saban Forum, a conference on the Middle East, in Washington, via satellite from Jerusalem. Trump takes office on Jan. 20.

Netanyahu has been a harsh critic of the nuclear deal, a legacy foreign policy achievement for Democratic President Barack Obama. But he had largely refrained from attacking the pact in recent months as Israeli and U.S. negotiators finalised a 10-year, $38 billion military aid package for Israel.

Before the nuclear agreement, Netanyahu, a conservative, strained relations with the White House by addressing the U.S. Congress in 2015 and cautioning against agreeing to the pact.

The Obama administration promoted the deal as a way to suspend Tehran’s suspected drive to develop atomic weapons. In return, Obama agreed to lift most sanctions against Iran. Tehran denies ever having considered developing nuclear arms.

Under the deal, Iran committed to reducing the number of its centrifuges by two-thirds, capping its level of uranium enrichment well below the level needed for bomb-grade material, reducing its enriched uranium stockpile from around 10,000 kg to 300 kg for 15 years, and submitting to international inspections to verify its compliance.

“The problem isn’t so much that Iran will break the deal, but that Iran will keep it because it just can walk in within a decade, and even less … to industrial-scale enrichment of uranium to make the core of an arsenal of nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told the forum.

‘NO, NO, NO AND NO’

Appearing later in person, Kerry defended the deal, arguing its monitoring provisions provided the ability to detect any significant uptick in Iran’s nuclear programs, “in which case every option that we have today is available to us then.”

Kerry pushed Israel to rein in construction of Jewish settlements on West Bank land it occupied in a 1967 war that the Palestinians want for a state. He also bluntly rejected the idea advanced by some Israelis that Israel might make a separate peace with Arab nations that share its concerns about Iran.

“No, no, no and no,” Kerry said. “There will be no advance and separate peace with the Arab world without the Palestinian process and Palestinian peace.”

On settlements, Kerry said: “There’s a basic choice that has to be made by Israelis … and that is, are there going to be continued settlements … or is there going to be separation and the creation of two states?”

The central issues to be resolved in the conflict include borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state, the future of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which most nations regard as illegal, the fate of Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem.

(Additional reporting by Larry King; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Iran warns of retaliation if U.S. breaches nuclear deal

Iran Supreme Leader

By Bozorgmehr Sharafedin

BEIRUT (Reuters) – Extending U.S. sanctions on Iran for 10 years would breach the Iranian nuclear agreement, Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei said on Wednesday, warning that Tehran would retaliate if the sanctions are approved.

The U.S. House of Representatives re-authorized last week the Iran Sanctions Act, or ISA, for 10 years. The law was first adopted in 1996 to punish investments in Iran’s energy industry and deter Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The Iran measure will expire at the end of 2016 if it is not renewed. The House bill must still be passed by the Senate and signed by President Barack Obama to become law.

Iran and world powers concluded the nuclear agreement, also known as JCPOA, last year. It imposed curbs on Iran’s nuclear program in return for easing sanctions that have badly hurt its economy.

“The current U.S. government has breached the nuclear deal in many occasions,” Khamenei said, addressing a gathering of members of the Revolutionary Guards, according to his website.

“The latest is extension of sanctions for 10 years, that if it happens, would surely be against JCPOA, and the Islamic Republic would definitely react to it.”

The U.S. lawmakers passed the bill one week after Republican Donald Trump was elected U.S. president. Republicans in Congress unanimously opposed the agreement, along with about two dozen Democrats, and Trump has also criticized it.

Lawmakers from both parties said they hoped bipartisan support for a tough line against Iran would continue under the new president.

President-elect Trump once said during his campaign that he would “rip up” the agreement, drawing a harsh reaction from Khamenei, who said if that happens, Iran would “set fire” to the deal.

The House of Representatives also passed a bill last week that would block the sale of commercial aircraft by Boeing <BA.N> and Airbus <AIR.PA> to Iran.

The White House believes that the legislation would be a violation of the nuclear pact and has said Obama would veto the measure even if it did pass the Senate.

(Reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin, editing by Larry King)

U.N. nuclear watchdog criticises Iran for overstepping deal limit

An Iranian flag flutters in front of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters in Vienna, Austria,

VIENNA (Reuters) – Iran must stop repeatedly overstepping a limit on its stock of a sensitive material set by its landmark deal with major powers, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Thursday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is policing the deal, said in a report last week that Iran had slightly exceeded the 130-tonne soft limit on its stock of heavy water for a second time since the deal was put in place in January.

Officials from the six other countries that signed the deal, including the United States, have expressed frustration over the breach and said the limit should be seen as firm.

Iran’s overstepping of the 130-tonne threshold also raises questions about how U.S. President-elect Donald Trump – who has strongly criticized the deal and said he will “police that contract so tough they (the Iranians) don’t have a chance” – would handle any similar case once he takes office.

“It is important that such situations should be avoided in future in order to maintain international confidence in the implementation of the JCPOA,” IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said in the text of a speech to his agency’s Board of Governors, using the acronym for the deal’s full name, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Last week’s report said Amano had expressed “concerns” to Iran over its stock of heavy water, a material used as a moderator in reactors like Iran’s unfinished one at Arak, which had its core removed and made unusable under the deal.

The agreement places restrictions on Iran’s atomic activities – monitored by the IAEA – in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Rather than setting a strict limit on heavy water as it does for enriched uranium, the deal estimates Iran’s needs to be 130 tonnes and says any amount beyond its needs “will be made available for export to the international market”.

“Iran has … made preparations to transfer a quantity of heavy water out of the country,” Amano said, without saying when the transfer would take place. “Once it has been transferred, Iran’s stock of heavy water will be below 130 metric tonnes.”

(Reporting by Francois Murphy; Editing by Gareth Jones)

Iran says has options if nuclear deal fails

Iran Foreign Minister

BRATISLAVA (Reuters) – Iran wants all parties to stick to an international nuclear deal but has options if that does not happen, its foreign minister said on Thursday after the U.S. election victory of Donald Trump, who has vowed to pull out of the pact.

“Of course Iran’s options are not limited but our hope and our desire and our preference is for the full implementation of the nuclear agreement, which is not bilateral for one side to be able to scrap,” Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said.

President Barack Obama’s outgoing administration touted the July 2015 deal reached between Iran and six world powers as a way to pre-empt Tehran’s suspected drive to develop atomic weapons by curbing its enrichment of uranium. In return Obama, a Democrat, agreed to a lifting of sanctions on Iran.

The Republican Trump called the nuclear pact a “disaster” and “the worst deal ever negotiated” during his election campaign and said it could lead to a “nuclear holocaust”.

The accord removed sanctions in return for Iran reducing the number of its uranium-enrichment centrifuges by two-thirds, capping its level of uranium enrichment well below the level needed for bomb-grade material, reducing its enriched uranium stockpile, and accepting U.N. inspections to verify compliance.

“Our strong preference as a party that has remained fully committed and implemented its side of the bargain (…) is for every member and participant and for international community to continue to remain committed to the agreement,” Zarif a news conference in Bratislava after meeting his Slovak counterpart Miroslav Lajcak.

“But it doesn’t mean we don’t have other options if the USA unwisely decides to move away from its obligations under the agreement,” he said when asked whether Tehran would start enrichment again if the Trump administration ditched the deal.

When asked whether he hoped for a similarly good working relationship with Trump’s future secretary of state as he had with the outgoing John Kerry, Zarif said it would not be necessary.

“We had a long nuclear negotiation between Iran and the United States. I do not expect another negotiation, certainly not on the nuclear issue, but nor on any other subjects so that I would need to establish a same type of contact with the new secretary of state, whoever that may be,” he said.

Former U.S. House of Representatives speaker Newt Gingrich – who has said he would renegotiate the nuclear deal with Iran, has been floated as a potential secretary of state under Trump, political sources said.

(Reporting by Tatiana Jancarikova; editing by Mark Heinrich)

Trump election puts Iran nuclear deal on shaky ground

Iran President

By Yeganeh Torbati

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Donald Trump’s election as president raises the prospect the United States will pull out of the nuclear pact it signed last year with Iran, alienating Washington from its allies and potentially freeing Iran to act on its ambitions.

Outgoing President Barack Obama’s administration touted the deal, a legacy foreign policy achievement, as a way to suspend Tehran’s suspected drive to develop atomic weapons. In return Obama, a Democrat, agreed to a lifting of most sanctions.

The deal, harshly opposed by Republicans in Congress, was reached as a political commitment rather than a treaty ratified by lawmakers, making it vulnerable to a new U.S. president, such as Trump, who might disagree with its terms.

A Republican, Trump ran for the White House opposing the deal but contradictory statements made it unclear how he would act. In an upset over Democrat Hillary Clinton, Trump won on Tuesday and will succeed Obama on Jan. 20.

A businessman-turned-politician who has never held public office, Trump called the nuclear pact a “disaster” and “the worst deal ever negotiated” during his campaign and said it could lead to a “nuclear holocaust.”

In a speech to the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC in March, Trump declared that his “Number-One priority” would be to “dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.”

He said he would have negotiated a better deal, with longer restrictions, but somewhat paradoxically, he criticized remaining U.S. sanctions that prevent American companies from dealing with Iran.

By contrast, he has conceded it would be hard to destroy a deal enshrined in a United Nations resolution. In August 2015, he said he would not “rip up” the nuclear deal, but that he would “police that contract so tough they don’t have a chance.”

Iran denies ever having considered developing atomic weapons. But experts said any U.S. violation of the deal would allow Iran also to pull back from its commitments to curb nuclear development.

Those commitments include reducing the number of its centrifuges by two-thirds, capping its level of uranium enrichment well below the level needed for bomb-grade material, reducing its enriched uranium stockpile from around 10,000 kg to 300 kg for 15 years, and submitting to international inspections to verify its compliance.

‘DIVISIVE DEAL’

“Say goodbye to the Iran deal,” said Richard Nephew, a former U.S. negotiator with Iran now at Columbia University.

“There is very little likelihood that it stays, either because of a deliberate decision to tear it up by Trump, or steps that the U.S. takes which prompt an Iranian walk back.”

The spokesman of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Behrouz Kamalvandi, was quoted as saying by Tasnim news agency: “Iran is prepared for any change,” adding that Iran would try to stand by the deal.

The nuclear deal was divisive in Iran, with hardliners opposed to better relations with the West arguing that pragmatist President Hassan Rouhani was giving up too much of the country’s nuclear infrastructure for too little relief.

Rouhani said on Wednesday the U.S. election results would have no effect on Tehran’s policies, state news agency IRNA quoted him as saying. [nL8N1DA46H]

Some of Washington’s closest Middle East allies have been skeptical of the nuclear deal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been outright hostile. Gulf leaders say the deal has emboldened Iran’s pursuit of regional hegemony in part through support for proxy groups fueling regional conflicts.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, whose power supersedes that of Rouhani, regularly criticizes the United States and says it should not be trusted, but ultimately assented to the terms of the deal, known by its acronym JCPOA.

KHAMENEI BIG WINNER

“The big winner in the aftermath of a Trump victory is Iran’s Supreme Leader,” said Suzanne Maloney, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution.

“He will have the most cartoonish American enemy, he will exult in the (hopefully brief) crash of the American economy, and he will be able to walk away from Iran’s obligations under the JCPOA while pinning the responsibility on Washington.”

Further complicating any Trump effort to renegotiate the deal is that it is a multilateral agreement involving U.S. allies in Europe as well as fellow world powers Russia and China. European and Asian firms have been returning to Iran and making major investments there, meaning the United States would likely be alone in pulling out of the deal, possibly isolating it from its partners.

On Wednesday, the head of gas, renewables and power for French oil and gas company Total TOTF.PA in Iran said Trump’s election would have no impact on investments [nP6N1CW004].

Khamenei has already promised to “set fire” to the nuclear deal if the West violates it. Iran has repeatedly complained it has not received benefits promised. Though European companies have been eager to explore business prospects in Iran, few deals have been enacted in part because European banks have been reluctant to finance deals involving Iran.

“As to whether he can negotiate a ‘better’ deal, it takes two (or seven) sides to agree to begin that process, something I rate as highly unlikely,” said Zachary Goldman, executive director of the Center on Law and Security at New York University and a former U.S. Treasury official.

“And if we walk away from the deal I think we will be in the worst of all worlds – Iran will feel freed from its commitments and we may be blamed for the deal falling apart.”

(Additional reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin in Beirut; Editing by Yara Bayoumy and Howard Goller)

Iran’s Khamenei says U.S., ‘evil’ Britain can’t be trusted

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

By Parisa Hafezi

ANKARA (Reuters) – Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Friday Tehran had no intention of cooperating on regional issues with its main enemies, the United States and “evil” Britain.

Khamenei also accused Washington of not being committed to a nuclear deal reached between Tehran and six major powers, including the United States, in 2015 that aims to curb the country’s disputed nuclear program.

Under the agreement, economic sanctions were lifted in January after Iran suspended sensitive nuclear work that the West suspects was aimed at creating a nuclear bomb. Iran denies seeking a nuclear bomb.

Inflation, unemployment and other economic hardships persuaded Khamenei to support President Hassan Rouhani on the nuclear question aimed at improving the parlous state of Iran’s economy.

“America has continued its enmity toward Iran since (the 1979 Islamic) revolution … It is a huge mistake to trust evil Britain and the Great Satan (the United States),” Khamenei said in a speech broadcast live on state TV.

“We will not cooperate with America over the regional crisis,” he said, adding that: “Their aims in the region are 180 degrees opposed to Iran’s.”

Relations with Washington were severed after Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution and enmity to the United States has always been a rallying point for hardliner supporters of Khamenei in Iran.

Tehran and Washington have common interests and threats across the Middle East. They have cooperated tactically in the past, including when Tehran helped Washington counter al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Islamic State militants (IS) in Iraq.

The United States and its allies in the Middle East accuse Iran of supporting terrorism and interfering in the affairs of regional states, including Syria, Yemen and Iraq.

Tehran is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s main regional ally and has provided military and economic support to his fight against rebel groups and IS.

Following the end of the sanctions on Iran, the country has started to increase trade with the West. But some U.S. sanctions remain and U.S. banks remain prohibited from doing business with Iran directly or indirectly because Washington still accuses Tehran of supporting terrorism and human rights abuses.

“They use human rights, terrorism … as pretexts to avoid fulfilling their commitments,” Khamenei said.

“If we remain strong and united and revolutionary, those who are trying to bully Iran and are against us will not succeed,” he told a gathering to commemorate the anniversary of the death of the revolution’s founder, Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini, in 1989.

Iran has repeatedly urged Washington to do more to remove obstacles to the banking sector.

Khamenei, whose hostility toward Washington holds together Iran’s faction-ridden leadership, said Iran should “remain cautious in its economic interaction with the West”.

(Writing by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Gareth Jones)

Iran launches nuclear-capable missiles in defiance of United Nations Security Council

Iran Missiles

By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – By launching nuclear-capable missiles Iran has defied a United Nations Security Council resolution that endorsed last year’s historic nuclear deal, the United States and its European allies said in a joint letter seen by Reuters on Tuesday.

Iran’s recent ballistic tests involved missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons and were “inconsistent with” and “in defiance of” council resolution 2231, adopted last July, said the joint U.S., British, French, German letter to Spain’s U.N. Ambassador Roman Oyarzun Marchesi and U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon.

The letter said the missiles used in the recent launches were “inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons.” It also asked that the Security Council discuss “appropriate responses” to Tehran’s failure to comply with its obligations and urged Ban to report back on Iranian missile work inconsistent with 2231.

Spain has been assigned the task of coordinating council discussions on resolution 2231.

Council diplomats have said the case for new U.N. sanctions was weak, hinging on interpretation of ambiguous language in a resolution adopted as part of a July nuclear deal to drastically restrict Iran’s nuclear work.

Western officials say that although the launches went against 2231, they were not a violation of the core nuclear agreement between Iran, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

Russia, a permanent veto-wielding council member, has made clear it does not support new U.N. sanctions on Iran. Both Russia and China had lobbied against continuing restrictions on Iran’s missile program during last year’s negotiations on the nuclear deal.

The four powers’ carefully worded letter stopped short of calling the Iranian launches a “violation” of the resolution, which “calls upon” Iran to refrain for up to eight years from activity, including launches, related to ballistic missiles designed with the capability of delivering nuclear weapons.

Diplomats say key powers agree that request is not legally binding and cannot be enforced under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which deals with sanctions and authorization of military force. But Western nations, which view the language as a ban, say there is a political obligation on Iran to comply.

International sanctions on Tehran were lifted in January under the nuclear deal.

The commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ missile battery said the missiles tested were designed to be able to hit U.S. ally Israel. The United States condemned the remarks and Russia said countries should not threaten each other.

The letter said the four Western powers “note with concern that Iranian military leaders have reportedly claimed these missiles are designed to be a direct threat to Israel.”

Several diplomats said the most Iran could expect would be a public rebuke by the Security Council. Under the nuclear deal, the reimposition of U.N. sanctions would only be triggered by violations of the agreed restrictions on Iran’s atomic work.

But a council rebuke could provide a legal springboard for European countries to consider new sanctions against Iran, Western diplomats said.

Last week the U.S. Treasury Department blacklisted two Iranian companies for supporting Iran’s ballistic missile program, and also sanctioned two British businessmen it said were helping an airline used by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

France has also suggested there could be unilateral European Union sanctions against Iran over the launches.

(Additional reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Andrew Hay)

Iran seen escaping U.N. sanctions over missiles due to ambiguous resolution

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – Iran will likely escape new United Nations sanctions, though the U.N. Security Council could issue a public reprimand for recent launches of what Western officials described as ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, diplomats said.

Council diplomats said the case for sanctions was weak, hinging on interpretation of ambiguous language in a resolution adopted by the 15-member body last July, part of an historic deal to curb Iran’s nuclear work.

International sanctions on Tehran were lifted in January under the nuclear deal brokered by Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and the United States. Diplomats said all six countries agreed the ballistic missile tests do not violate the core agreement.

However, the Security Council resolution “calls upon” Iran to refrain for up to eight years from activity, including launches, related to ballistic missiles designed with the capability of delivering nuclear weapons.

Key powers agree that request is not legally binding and cannot be enforced under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which deals with sanctions and authorization of military force. But Western nations, which view the language as a ban, say there is a political obligation on Iran to comply.

Britain said the missile launches show Iran’s “blatant disregard” for the resolution, while France said it was “a case of non-compliance.” The United States initially deemed the tests a violation, but has softened that stance, calling Iran “in defiance” of the resolution.

Russia, which has Security Council veto power, says Iran has not violated the resolution. Russia opposes new U.N. sanctions, but acknowledged that if the missiles were proven capable of carrying a nuclear weapon, it could be suggested Tehran has not been “respectful” of the council.

“A call is different from a ban, so legally you cannot violate a call, you can comply with a call or you can ignore the call, but you cannot violate a call,” Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said on Monday. “The legal distinction is there.”

Laura Rockwood, former chief of the legal department at the International Atomic Energy Agency and now head of the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Nonproliferation, said of the U.N. resolution: “This was probably a classic case of language negotiated with ‘constructive ambiguity’ in mind.”

In a 2010 resolution, the Security Council decided Iran “shall not” carry out activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons – a clear, legal ban.

The United States agreed to soften the language on ballistic missiles in the July resolution, largely because Russia and China insisted, diplomats said.

“When you look at your hand, and you can’t even bluff … you fold,” said a U.S. official.

Despite Russia’s opposition to new sanctions, the United States has vowed to continue pushing for U.N. Security Council action on the ballistic missile tests. Instead of sanctions, the council could decide to issue a statement rebuking Iran, not only for the missile tests, but for threatening another state.

The commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ missile battery said the missiles tested were designed to be able to hit U.S. ally Israel. The United States condemned the remarks and Russia said countries should not threaten each other.

Churkin also argued the U.N. resolution required a heavy burden of proof that the ballistic missiles were “designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.” The United States and its European allies are expected to make a technical case to the council about how Iran failed to abide by the U.N. resolution.

“These were designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. This merits a council response,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, told reporters on Monday.

According to the International Missile Control Regime, ballistic missiles are considered nuclear capable if they have a range of at least 300 km and can carry a payload of up to 500 kg.

Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies said he did not believe Iran’s missile launches were a violation of the “ambiguous” resolution because the “missiles in question can’t be proven to have been designed to deliver nuclear weapons.”

Iranian officials, including pragmatist President Hassan Rouhani, insist Tehran’s missile program does not violate the nuclear deal or the U.N. resolution.

“With Russia and China on Iran’s side, there will be no resolutions, sanctions or any action against Iran over its missile or aerospace programs,” said a senior official in Tehran, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Now that sanctions on Tehran had been lifted, the official said Western countries were keen to do business in Iran.

“Iran is not being seen as a danger any more even for the Western countries,” the official said. “Iran is like a gold mine for them. They need us and we need them. So, why endanger this situation?”

(Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed in Washington, Parisa Hafezi in Ankara and John Irish in Paris; Editing by David Gregorio)

Iran says missiles for self defense, tests do not violate nuclear deal

CANBERRA (Reuters) – Iran’s foreign minister said on Tuesday that its ballistic missiles were for self-defense and that recent tests condemned by the United States did not violate an historic nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers.

Speaking in Australia, Mohammad Javad Zarif said that the missiles tested last week would never be used in aggression. The tests drew international concern and prompted a meeting on Monday of the 15-nation United Nations Security Council.

“These missiles do not even fall within the purview of 2231 and they are not illegal,” he told reporters, referring to the council resolution, adopted in July, that endorsed the nuclear deal.

“Iran will never use any means to attack any country, including our missiles. These are only for our defense. I challenge those who are complaining about Iran’s missile program … to make the same statement,” he added.

The United States on Monday vowed to continue pushing for U.N. Security Council action on the ballistic missile tests and accused Russia of looking for reasons not to respond to what is says are Iranian violations of the resolution.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power was referring to comments from Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, who said that in the view of veto-wielding Russia, Iran’s ballistic missile tests did not violate resolution 2231.

The resolution “calls upon” Iran to refrain from certain ballistic missile activity. Western nations see that as a clear ban, though council diplomats say China and other council members agree with Russia’s and Iran’s view that such work is not banned.

Zarif, speaking in Canberra following meetings with Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, strongly echoed Churkin’s language.

Bishop told reporters that she had raised the issue of the missile tests with Zarif during a private meeting and that Australia refused to rule out an investigation in the Security Council.

“It is Australia’s position that should the United Nations Security Council wish to investigate this matter, then that would be the proper legal process for it to do so,” she told reporters.

Australia also said on Tuesday that it would re-open a trade office in Iran after a recent lifting in sanctions created commercial opportunities between the two nations.

Mining equipment, technology and services and agricultural commodities were cited as potential areas of trade in a statement released by Steven Ciobo, Minister for Trade and Investment.

(Additional reporting by Cecile Lefort in Sydney; Editing by Kim Coghill)

Israeli official links Netanyahu’s canceled U.S. trip to defense aid hold-up

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – A hold-up over a new U.S. defense package for Israel was behind Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to forgo a meeting with President Barack Obama in Washington this month, a senior Israeli official said on Thursday.

Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely’s remarks contrasted with a statement by Netanyahu that cited his reluctance to risk being drawn into the U.S. presidential campaign as the reason for declining a White House offer to host him on March 18.

Current U.S. military grants to Israel, worth about $3 billion annually, expire in 2018.

Israel, which last year requested $5 billion in future annual aid but whose officials have since set their sights on $4 billion to $4.5 billion, says it needs to expand its military, rather than just upgrade technologies, given spiraling arms procurement it anticipates by arch-foe Iran and Arab states.

U.S. officials have given lower target figures of around $3.7 billion. The dispute prompted Israeli officials to hint that Netanyahu may bank on Obama’s successor for a better deal.

“There was a decision not to go to the president as long the agreement over the compensation package is not concluded,” Hotovely told Israel Radio, using a term linking the future U.S. aid to last year’s international nuclear deal with Iran, which brought sanctions relief that Tehran may use for arms purchases.

“The prime minister wants to honor the U.S. president by going when there is a basis, good news on the matter of the U.S. aid package,” she said. “This really has to be taken seriously.”

U.S. officials say they still hope for an agreement before Obama leaves office next January.

FRAUGHT RELATIONSHIP

The White House’s announcement on Monday that Netanyahu had turned down the meeting with Obama was seen as the latest episode in a fraught relationship that has yet to recover from deep differences over the Iran nuclear deal.

Some U.S. sources assessed that Netanyahu wanted the MOU concluded before meeting Obama and that the lag was among the reasons for not coming to Washington, where he was to have addressed the annual conference of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC.

Vice President Joe Biden, in Jerusalem on Wednesday for discussions with Netanyahu that included the “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) on defense aid between 2018 and 2028, appeared to acknowledge Israel’s terms.

“We’re committed to making sure that Israel can defend itself against all serious threats, maintain its qualitative edge with a quantity sufficient to maintain that,” Biden said.

It was not clear if that signaled a deal was close.

U.S. negotiators have made clear that, while they want Israel to maintain a technological advantage over its neighbors, they differ over the level of risk of increased quantities of less-advanced arms in the hands of Washington’s Arab allies who seek to counter Iran.

(Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by Jeffrey Heller and Gareth Jones)