President of Anti-Nuclear-Iran Group Dismisses Imminent Threat of Iranian Nuke

by Eli Clifton

Yesterday, Gary Samore, president of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), published a column on the website of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) arguing that even if talks between the P5+1 and Iran collapse, “Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons in the near term is severely constrained by political and technical factors.”

But Samore seems not to have contacted his office with that sensible sounding message. “It’s time to come down like a ton of bricks on this regime,” Gabriel Pedreira, communications director of UANI, told The Algemeiner, a US Jewish news outlet, on the same day. “We want an economic blockade if real change doesn’t come about. We haven’t seen a single concession from the Iranians, nor has even one centrifuge been destroyed,” said Pedreira.

That’s not what Samore, Pedreira’s boss, wrote. “Despite the impasse over the scale and scope of Iran’s enrichment program, the negotiators have made progress on several other issues, such as converting the Fordow enrichment facility to a research and development facility and converting the Arak heavy water research reactor to produce less plutonium,” said Samore.

And as for Pedreira’s argument that an “economic blockade” would be helpful? Samore acknowledged that a new interim agreement, presumably to be considered if the P5+1 and Iran are unable to meet the November 24 deadline for a comprehensive agreement, would be “resisted by some in Iran” if it is perceived that “it gives away too much nuclear capability without getting enough sanctions relief in return.”

In other words, an “economic blockade,” as Pedreira puts it, would give Iran’s hardliners ammunition to oppose a new interim agreement, which might be exactly what UANI wants.

The organization expressed “disappointment” with the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action, complaining that the agreement “provides disproportionate sanctions relief to Iran,” and has consistently opposed rollback of sanctions as part of an interim deal.

Indeed, both Mark Wallace, UANI’s CEO, and UANI’s mysterious benefactor, billionaire Thomas Kaplan, have expressed more hardline views than Samore, who served in the Obama administration as the president’s Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction until last year.

But the divergence between Samore’s column, in which he is ID’d with his Belfer Center affiliation instead of UANI, and UANI’s contradictory statements the same day, raises questions about how much leadership Samore is offering to the organization and whether his role is more than purely ceremonial. Either way, Samore should probably phone his (UANI) office.

This article was published by The Nation on Sept. 30 and was reprinted here with permission. Copyright The Nation.

Eli Clifton

Eli Clifton reports on money in politics and US foreign policy. He is a co-founder of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Eli previously reported for the American Independent News Network, ThinkProgress, and Inter Press Service.



  1. all other parts like changing Ferso or Arak is subject to agreement on enrichment. Obviously, Iran will not implement those parts if it can’t reach a final deal

  2. Perhaps if Gabriel Pedreira were to volunteer Tel Aviv to give up their nuclear weapons then the Iranians might consider giving up their enrichment program. Is that not worth a try?

  3. I agree With you John! The least Israel can do is to join IAEA and stop talking about others! I believe their credibility is questionable and they should be ignored by the media entirely!

  4. I find it hard to believe that nuclear weapons could play any significant part in the Middle East disputes. Using such weapons against near neighbors, is too liable to have serious repercussions on the user. Using nukes against a perceived enemy on another continent might be a better bet, but an attack by Iran on the United States would certainly result in a terrible revenge.
    In the final analysis, only a madman would start a nuclear war and those seem to be fairly evenly distributed among our so-called friends, as well as our presumed enemies.

  5. Actually, my suggestion was made tongue-in-cheek. There is no way that the Zionists would ever contemplate admitting they have nuclear weapons, let alone consider giving them up.
    Having them means they get to play with the bigger boys – and who would want to give that up?
    Still, we can still make the suggestion if for no better reason than to just wind them up !!!
    Watching them squirm can be such fun !!!!

Comments are closed.