Zarif/Iran

From:seizenstat@gmail.com To: jake.sullivan@gmail.com CC: John.Podesta@gmail.com, huma@hrcoffice.com, seizenstat@cov.com Date: 2015-10-08 02:06 Subject: Zarif/Iran

_____ Dear Jake, I attended a meeting on Monday, October 5, in New York with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif, hosted by the Atlantic Council (whose Iran Task Force I chair) and the New America Foundation (with Bill Leurs and Tom Pickering). This is the third meeting I have had with Zarif. He made the following points in a 20 minute speech and answers to questions: 1. The nuclear agreement was a victory for diplomacy and dialogue. What was a success for Iran is not a defeat for the U.S. This is not a zero sum game. The agreement is the best insurance against an Iranian breakout. The "fabricated nuclear material cannot be used for making a bomb." We are willing to take "your nuclear fuel, so we will not need to make any of our own." 2. Implementation of the agreement requires transparency and a commitment to abide by its terms, and Iran will do so. 3. The US seems intent in terms of sanctions relief to do the "least it can do". He is "concerned with the tough interpretation of sanctions relief by OFAC. Moreover, the New York banking authorities are complicating things even more with financial sanctions, making it difficult for European companies to get the funds to invest in Iran. This sends negative signals Treasury and DOJ should give a reasonable interpretation to the lifting of sanctions. Otherwise, it will make it difficult for even European companies to do business in Iran. Here again, the U.S. seems to view sanctions relief as a zero sum game, in which whatever helps Iran is bad for the U.S. It is in everyone's interest if Iran's economy recovers, and gets out of a "siege mentality". 4. Iran does not expect American companies to do business with Iran because of continuing U.S. sanctions. But under existing rules, many U.S. companies can do business with Iran. For example, Iran needs 400 new aircraft, and can purchase them from either Boeing or Airbus. There is no legal bar to Boeing selling its aircraft to Iran, with an OFAC license. Likewise, humanitarian goods can be sold to Iran from the U.S. now, including pharmaceuticals and medical devices made by GE. Iran can be a "huge market" for U.S. goods and services. 5. Even if the lifting of sanctions will not help U.S. companies that much, compared to European companies, eventually this will happen. 6. Just as politics in the U.S. are difficult, they are also "difficult" in Iran .A member of the Iranian parliament said that Zarif's hands should be cut-off for shaking hands with President Obama at the United Nations this week. It is wrong to think that all decisions in Iran are made by one man. 7. Iran and the U.S. have negative views of each other. The U.S. sees Iran as determined to get a nuclear weapon, while Iran sees the U.S. as trying do dominate the Middle East. 8. He spent a good deal of time discussing Saudi Arabia. He said since his first days in office he has sought a dialogue, but Iranian overtures have been rebuffed. He was told by the Saudis, "leave the Arabs to ourselves". He recounted that he left the World Economic Forum immediately and made the long trip to Saudi Arabia for the funeral of King Abdullah. But he received barely a handshake for his efforts. Saudi Arabia also sees relations with Iran as a zero sum game. The Saudis think ISIS can help them against Iran. Iran has sent a new Ambassador to Saudi Arabia who they trust, and he hopes this will help the relationship. 9. I asked him about the use of the unfrozen assets, and I said that people here will be looking to see if Iran spends its new-found funds on its people and investments, of if substantial amounts go to Hezbollah. He gave a tough response. "The money is our money and it was illegally blocked by the U.S., and what we do with our money is purely our business." He further said, "You spend 10 times more in the Middle East than we do, and what has it gotten you?" He contended Iran would only get $40 billion and we will spend it for our people. 10. If we give funds to Hezbollah, they are a positive force in Lebanon, and have kept ISIS out of Lebanon. 11. Regarding Syria, he said the presence if Russian military equipment and personnel was a good thing for Syria. He contented that "four months ago ISIS was close to Damascus, and this necessitated Russian help to beat them back. Iran "does not intend to send troops to Syria, but we will play a greater role in training and supporting the Syrian Army. He asked rhetorically, "what good has the U.S. and its allies done in combating ISIS?" He said flatly, "We are cooperating with Russia in Syria." The U.S., he asserted, has a dilemma in Syria. If you stick with the rebels, your support is not likely to be effective; if you support Assad you are changing your policy. He asserted that 12. Regarding the 1994 AMIA bombing and the recent controversy over the death of the prosecutor Nisman, shortly before he was to deliver a report to the Argentine Congress, the person who alleged Iran blew up AMIA has been proven a fraud and liar. He did saw shortly after Nisman's death that it was a suicide, but he was simply following the statement made by Argentina's democratically elected leader. "It is a mistake to allege Iran blew up AMIA." The Saudis are behind all of this with their incorrect allegations. 13. Robin Wright of the Post, asked him about the release of the prisoners, including Jason, their journalist. Zarif said he knows Jason and would like to see him released, but he is an Iranian citizen, and an Iranian court found him guilty of passing along intelligence to a foreign power He is subject to Iranian law. "It will be hard to justify their release to our public." However, he added, "I am ready for a negotiation, but it will have to involve the release of Iranian prisoners in the U.S." The US "says we should be flexible", but you are not flexible with our prisoners". But he would like to see them back in the U.S. and their prisoners back in Iran. Best wishes, Stu Eizenstat P.S. On the unrelated issue of TPP, I am disappointed with the position Hillary took. Of course, I am fully aware of the politics of the issue, but she could have stressed the geo-political advantage of passing it, in terms of combating Chinese influence in Asia. Also, the environmental groups seem positive. She might have dealt with the deficiencies in the trade area by bilateral side agreements, as with NAFTA. Her position will complicate an already difficult fight to pass TPP; its defeat would be a gift to China.