New Hope for Iranian-US Peace

President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry, following the peaceful resolution of the Syrian chemical weapons crisis are moving with all deliberate speed toward a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis. Israeli PM Netanyahu opposed the Syrian deal and he has gone apoplectic over the current negotiations with Iran. He is also clashing with Secretary Kerry over the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (see the Israeli-Palestinian Peace thread).

Former CIA analyst Paul Pillar discusses the attempts by Netanyahu and the permanent war faction in the US to sabotage the Iranian negotiations:

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/11/09/sabotaging-an-iran-nuke-deal/

Fareed Zakaria had an excellent show on what the recently concluded negotiations between Iran and the P5 in Geneva:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1311/10/fzgps.01.html

FAREED ZAKARIA GPS November 10, 2013

Part 1 of 3 [ ... ]

It's difficult to know what to make of the failure to arrive at an agreement between the West and Iran. The high level talks have ended. Negotiations will resume at a lower level in 10 days.

Secretary of State John Kerry's comments seemed the most sensible. "It was always going to be hard to arrive at a deal with Iran when the mistrust was so deep and had gone on for so long."

But what was remarkable was the tone of the negotiators as they broke up. Both the Iranians and the main Western negotiator, Catherine Ashton of the European Union, were positive and constructive believing that much progress has been made.

There were voices that were much less positive. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized what he described as, "The deal of the century." His aides explained that Iran was going to get everything it wanted in return for nothing. "A mess of pottage," said one of them, making a biblical allusion.

The other critic of the deal appears to have been French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. France's hard-line position actually allowed Washington to look reasonable though, for some, it proved that no matter what position the United States takes, you can count on France to try to sabotage it.

But the criticisms of the deal sound like alarmist hype to me. The basic agreement that might have been inked was that Iran would temporarily freeze its nuclear program including its uranium enrichments in return for some relief from Western sanctions.

During that period, about six months, serious negotiations would take place to arrive at a final agreement. The key here is what kind of sanctions relief were the Iranians going to get?

The answer is clear, not much. The Obama administration was not proposing that any of the major sanctions against Iran be lifted or even suspended. Those are all passed by Congress and couldn't be lifted easily anyway.

It was proposing to take pretty minor steps. Europe has more flexibility on sanctions, but, from what we've heard, those countries were also proposing relief of very small kinds.

Now, the argument is that Iran should make significant concessions, but that the West should make none at all, that's not negotiations, that's a requirement that the other side surrender.

Which makes one wonder, do the critics of this negotiating process want a better deal or do they really want no deal at all so that it opens up another path to deal with the problem, which is war.

In that case, the danger for those critics was not that the Geneva negotiations were failing, but rather that they were succeeding.

Let's get started.

You've just heard my take. Let's bring in some experts. Ken Pollack is a former CIA analyst. He's been a staffer at the National Security Council. He's the author of a great new book, "Unthinkable: Iran, the bomb and American Strategy."

Joe Cirincione is the President of the Ploughshares Fund. He's also the author of a forthcoming book, "Nuclear Nightmares: Security the World Before It's Too Late."

Joe, let me just start with you by asking you do you think that there -- net-net, is there a deal on-hand here? What did you read about of what happened?

JOE CIRINCIONE, PRESIDENT, PLOUGHSHARES FUND, AUTHOR: We are very close, Fareed. I thought your opening comments were just right on the mark. You know, we've seen some remarkable developments over the last couple days including the normalization of U.S and Iranian dialogue.

We now take it for granted that the Secretary of State should talk to Iran's foreign minister, but that hadn't happened in 34 years until last September and now they spent more time in the last 24 hours than they have in 34 years.

The outlines of the deal are clear. Iran will take initial steps to freeze its programs in place. As you said, we will take very minor steps to release some financial assets and it'll be done in a phased agreement over the next six or seven months, each step building on the last.

We're very, very close. They come back again in 10 days. I expect we'll get a deal very soon.

ZAKARIA: Ken, are you as optimistic?

GPS 11-10-13 Part 2 of 3

KEN POLLACK, FORMER CIA ANALYST, AUTHOR: Well, I certainly share Joe's hope that this deal can be brought about and I share both of your hope that this -- or expectation that this is a good deal.

But I think the problems that have arisen make me a little bit more skeptical. A little bit more concerned, may be a better way to put it because, you know, the French objections don't seem to be terribly meaningful.

As you pointed out, these are things that should be dealt with in a final status agreement between the two of them. It's not really clear why the French decide to make an issue of this now. That makes me a little bit more concerned than I was going into this about how hard it may be to get it.

ZAKARIA: Joe, let me ask you to explain, very simply, why you think that the big obstacle that has been talked about isn't an obstacle. Without getting too wonky, there is one reactor -- a plutonium-based reactor in Arak.

The reason people worry that if a plutonium-based reactor gets completed it's a problem, is that uranium-based reactors can be bombed. Plutonium-based ones can't be bombed because it would release plutonium into the atmosphere.

So why do you think that that isn't a problem? Because the French seem to be saying we can't allow them to keep working on this plutonium-based reactor because once it -- you know, once you reach a critical state, there's no going back.

CIRINCIONE: Yes. Two reasons, Fareed. One, it is a problem, but it's not a problem for three or four years. The reactor is behind schedule. It won't come on-line until the end of next year.

Then, you put the fuel in it and some plutonium is produced, but that takes at least another year. Then, you've got to take the fuel out and reprocess it. Iran doesn't have a reprocessing facility.

So it's a problem three or four years down the road. In this interim step, Iran was apparently agreed to suspend construction of this reactor and so it's a problem you can deal with, but it has to be dealt with later.

Let's freeze the key parts of the program now, stop them from enriching uranium to 20 percent, lengthen the fuse in any breakout scenario.

ZAKARIA: Ken, what about the other country, other than France, that is clearly objecting vociferously, Israel. What do you think that tells us?

POLLACK: Well, first of all, it's not clear exactly what the Israelis are doing. I think we should hope that the Israelis are doing is simply trying to play "bad cop" to try to get the best deal possible.

But, you know, Prime Minister Netanyahu's -- his rhetoric has been so far off to the other side that it raises the question that perhaps he is actually trying to blow up the negotiations, perhaps he doesn't want a deal. That would be enormously damaging.

If, at the end the day, we don't get a deal between the international community and Iran and Israel is the culprit, that actually backfires completely against Israel, against the United States and very much in favor of Iran's hard-liners, exactly the people that Netanyahu shouldn't be trying to empower.

ZAKARIA: Joe, what do you think about the French one? As Ken was saying, there's some part of this -- the French have taken a slightly harder line position on the Iranian nuclear program puzzling because on almost everything in the Middle east they tend to be -- they outflank the United States, you know, by being more soft.

What do you think is going on here?

GPS 11-10-13 Part 3 of 3

CIRINCIONE: Well, The Guardian, reports today that the other members were furious were furious. You have to understand. Everybody else was in agreement and even the French negotiators were in agreement until the foreign minister arrived and threw a spanner in the works.

Some suspect this is has commercial motivations, that France is trying to position itself for lucrative contracts with the Saudis and other Gulf States by showing its opposition to Iran. Some think it's just a play for attention.

The reason I'm optimistic is that underlying it, these core strategic objectives of Iran, of the United States and the other states, line up. We're moving towards a deal.

There is a strategic shift that has taken place in Iran. We have a Secretary of State and an administration that's willing to take advantage of that.

I am very hopeful that we can work out the clinks, that we can take out the overload that the French want to put on the cart and come up with a clean, initial first step.

ZAKARIA: Ken, final thought on the one final monkey wrench which is Congress. Congress has to pass sanctions relief. If anything, it seems to be going in the opposition direction of putting more onerous sanctions -- not quite sanctions, but requirements on Iran.

POLLACK: Yes. I would look at this, in particular, from the Iranian perspective, Fareed. Because, ultimately, what the Congress is doing is simply putting another brick in the wall of sanctions. It's not terribly meaningful in and of itself.

But, you know, across the ocean, you've got Hassan Rouhani who has shown a lot of courage in being willing to pursue these talks and is taking a big risk in terms of his own political position.

He's got to look to Barack Obama to be his partner and to be willing to sell any reasonable deal to the American Congress. And I think so far the administration is saying, don't worry, no matter what the Congress does, no matter how many additional sanctions they pass, if we get the deal, I'll sell it to the Congress.

The problem is so far, he's never been willing to do that. He's never been willing to take the Congress on when it comes to Iran sanctions. And Hassan Rouhani may be wondering do I really have a partner over there in Washington.

ZAKARIA: Joe, when you look at this, take Ken's point, if you were to get a deal of some kind that the international community could live with, that the Obama administration could live with, what happens in Congress. Will Congress undo the sanctions because only Congress can do that?

CIRINCIONE: Well, as you know, Fareed, undoing sanctions takes a much longer time than putting them on and you're always going to have political opposition and ideological opposition in Congress to this president.

But the president has enormous waiver authority. He can suspend the sanctions for a long time. Many of their sanctions relief we're talking about in this initial step are things that only the president has control over, freeing up certain frozen Iranian assets, for example.

And once you get a deal that starts to gain momentum, that you show that you've actually stopped the Iranian threat, that the deal in place is much better than no deal at all and far preferable to going to war, I think you'll see support among the leading members of Congress build.

You already see members that are skittish on this taking some reassurance by the direction the negotiations are going. I'm hopeful that those leaders will stop any new sanctions over the next month to give these diplomatic talks a fair chance.

ZAKARIA: Ken, 10 seconds, do agree that if Obama does stand up, that he would be able to move Congress?

POLLACK: Yes. I think that Joe is right that if we get a good deal on the table, it's going to be very difficult for the Congress to turn it down. Because, as you both point out, the alternatives are much worse.

Too bad Netanyahu's so outraged. We are negotiating with Iran, and as long as Democrats are in power and Iran will speak with us, and nothing happens to change the balance of power over this, it will continue. Will Netanyahu try to change that?

Word on MSNBC just now is that an agreement might be in the works via the UN.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=WIJAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The split between the US and Israel is growing wider and is becoming more public, as this Israeli TV report indicates:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-and-us-held-secret-talks-for-over-a-year/

French Pres Hollande told Netanyahu an agreement with Iran is likely soon, not what Netanyahu wanted to hear. Netanyahu and the Saudis are alone in the world in opposing a diplomatic agreement with Iran.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.558646

Lead editorial in today's Star-Ledger. Netanyahu fears peace with Iran because it will deprive him of his primary demagogic weapon against ending the occupation of the West Bank.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2013/11/make_a_deal_with_iran_editoria.html

Make a deal with Iran: Editorial

Star-Ledger Editorial Board By Star-Ledger Editorial Board
on November 20, 2013 at 6:00 AM, updated November 20, 2013 at 6:03 AM

Israel has no better friend than the United States, so it is jarring to see the hawkish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu again taking such public swings at President Obama.

Tensions between the two men have long been strained over Israel’s refusal to freeze settlements in the occupied West Bank, a policy that kills any chance of establishing a viable Palestinian state. Now, as negotiations are scheduled to restart today in Geneva, Netanyahu is leading the opposition to an interim deal over Iran’s nuclear program, and lobbying Congress to subvert the administration’s strategy. In both cases, the largest recipient of American aid is doing tangible damage to U.S. interests.

The argument over Iran centers on a tentative agreement to relax some of the sanctions for six months while Iran freezes key elements of its nuclear program. The idea is to use that period to negotiate a full agreement that lifts all sanctions in return for a verifiable deal that would end Iran’s ability to break out and build a bomb.

No one is suggesting this interim deal is perfect. Some senators, including New Jersey’s Robert Menendez, signed a letter to Obama this week saying that Iran’s concessions are not significant enough to justify any easing of sanctions. They’re considering measures to stiffen sanctions, as the House already has.

But the draft agreement does not contemplate easing the core sanctions against Iran’s oil exports. The United States and its partners will hold on to that most important piece of leverage. And if Iran breaks its word, the full sanctions could be reimposed quickly.

The alternative to muscular diplomacy is war. Israel has pressed the United States to draw a red line that would spark an attack on Iran. But with dozens of sites, some of them buried deep underground and others embedded in urban areas, military analysts say an attack would require weeks of airstrikes and unavoidably kill many civilians. Even then, it would likely set back Iran by only a few years.

Iran, of course, would answer by attacking our interests in the region, or by sponsoring terror attacks. And we, in turn, would have to answer that. So if you thought the Iraq War was a nightmare, consider that Iran has 2½ times the population and four times the land mass.

Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, is signaling interest in a détente with the United States after 34 years of open hostility. And unlike Israel, the United States has a broad set of strategic interests at stake in that relationship, including Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, terrorism, energy security and nuclear nonproliferation.

On this one, Netanyahu is dead wrong. To walk away from a deal and inch closer to war would be reckless.

It's simply not realistic to think that Iran will give up their efforts to have nukes. Anything they sign will lack adequate verification mechanisms to ensure otherwise. It's just not happening. Why would they give it up? The west whined and screamed when other countries went for it - India, Pakistan, NK, - but time passed and it became part of the status quo. Iran has reason to seek nukes other than to counter Israel. They have to be afraid that one day the Sunni crazies will take over Pakistan and get their hands on those nukes.

bub said:

It's simply not realistic to think that Iran will give up their efforts to have nukes. Anything they sign will lack adequate verification mechanisms to ensure otherwise. It's just not happening. Why would they give it up? The west whined and screamed when other countries went for it - India, Pakistan, NK, - but time passed and it became part of the status quo. Iran has reason to seek nukes other than to counter Israel. They have to be afraid that one day the Sunni crazies will take over Pakistan and get their hands on those nukes.

A final deal (not what's being negotiated now) will enable Iran to return to the community of nations, which has many incentives -- economic, technological, political and cultural. Iran's security will be enhanced, not lessened, by an agreement that guarantees it will not produce nuclear weapons.

paulsurovell said:

bub said:

It's simply not realistic to think that Iran will give up their efforts to have nukes. Anything they sign will lack adequate verification mechanisms to ensure otherwise. It's just not happening. Why would they give it up? The west whined and screamed when other countries went for it - India, Pakistan, NK, - but time passed and it became part of the status quo. Iran has reason to seek nukes other than to counter Israel. They have to be afraid that one day the Sunni crazies will take over Pakistan and get their hands on those nukes.

A final deal (not what's being negotiated now) will enable Iran to return to the community of nations, which has many incentives -- economic, technological, political and cultural. Iran's security will be enhanced, not lessened, by an agreement that guarantees it will not produce nuclear weapons.

That is the rational argument for non-proliferation. Sometimes reason prevails.

Kerry heads to Geneva again. A very good sign for peace.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.559673

High ranking elements within the Israeli military break rank with Netanyahu and support a deal:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2013/1121/Israeli-military-goes-off-message-on-Iran-nuclear-talks-video?

"Tel Aviv

Even as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues his diplomatic offensive against what he calls a "dangerous" compromise on Iran’s nuclear program, Israel’s military intelligence seems open to a deal, even one that relaxes the Western sanctions on Iran that Mr. Netanyahu has vocally supported.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that war could result from a bad deal between world powers and Iran over its nuclear program. He has urged no let-up in international economic sanctions. Netanyahu has often hinted at possible Israeli military action if diplomacy and sanctions failed to block what he says is Iran's goal of building atomic weapons. There is deep skepticism among security experts abroad and in Israel over whether its military could cause lasting damage on its own to Iran's deeply buried atomic facilities.

According to an unclassified assessment shared by a senior Israeli officer, military intelligence is focused on the implications of a potential compromise between Iran and the P5+1 (the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany).

A deal would boost President Hassan Rouhani, whose surprise victory in June appeared to herald a political shift in Iran – although he is up against hardliners who oppose a deal.

In the background briefing with foreign journalists, which covered a wide range of Middle East hotspots, the intelligence officer said Iran was one of several countries that could buck the general turmoil across the region.

"We see a bit of a possibility, although it’s quite problematic, of more … stability," said the officer, who spoke on the basis of anonymity. But that is dependent on the success of negotiations "over the nuclear project, but more than that, over the relief of the sanctions on the Iranian economy," he said."

Done deal.

dave said:

Done deal.

As Monty Hall would say; " a clunker" of a deal for the US. Smh

The esteemed senator from Texas pleasured us with one of his "cogent" comments. The WH must be filled with miracle workers to get the UK, Russia, China, France and Germany to collude and conspire in this distraction.

Cornyn is an embarrassment. But then so is Texas for voting him in.

SlyFoxy1 said:

dave said:

Done deal.

As Monty Hall would say; " a clunker" of a deal for the US. Smh

How so?

I never thought in my lifetime I would see Saudi Arabia as a bigger ally to Israel than the United States.

Iran gets 8 Billion (4 in aid, 4in sanction relief), in exchange they "agree" to limit their uranium enrichment to a certain amount ( read: NOT STOP uranium enrichment) and no "deal" on existing centrifuges.
The UN weapon inspectors are allowed to make inspections of TAPED footage of nuclear facilities daily. (Last I heard tapes can be edited)

Nothing Obama does makes sense.

A few short weeks ago he wanted to BOMB Syria for bombing Syria. Now he wants to "deal" with Iran, who has made no bones about wanting to annihilate the US & Israel.
He is willing to trust Iran, Need I remind you of our past with Iran? (Who, BTW is still holding a US pastor - nothing mentioned about this).

Next up, Kim Jeon Un & Obama play golf, a gentlemans game which relies on honesty. Smh

Actually, UN inspectors will have more, not less, access to Iran's nuclear facilities. As for the financial costs, war is far more costly.

Ah, another Obama attempt to distract us from ACA! Or Benghazi!

I read somewhere that a major goal of the Obama administration in the 2nd term was that Israel not bomb Iran's facilities, risking a war in the mid east. If that's been accomplished, puts the ACA failure in perspective.

SlyFoxy1 said:

I never thought in my lifetime I would see Saudi Arabia as a bigger ally to Israel than the United States.

Iran gets 8 Billion (4 in aid, 4in sanction relief), in exchange they "agree" to limit their uranium enrichment to a certain amount ( read: NOT STOP uranium enrichment) and no "deal" on existing centrifuges.
The UN weapon inspectors are allowed to make inspections of TAPED footage of nuclear facilities daily. (Last I heard tapes can be edited)

Nothing Obama does makes sense.

A few short weeks ago he wanted to BOMB Syria for bombing Syria. Now he wants to "deal" with Iran, who has made no bones about wanting to annihilate the US & Israel.
He is willing to trust Iran, Need I remind you of our past with Iran? (Who, BTW is still holding a US pastor - nothing mentioned about this).

Next up, Kim Jeon Un & Obama play golf, a gentlemans game which relies on honesty. Smh

So sad that you and your ilk can never get on the side of history.

In addition to my usual sarcastic response to national GOP "positions," the Cornyn reaction posted above
certainly clarifies just why GOP "ideas" with regard to any of BHO's actions are not to be taken seriously.

Saudis enjoy playing Let's-You-And-Them-Fight (us/Shiites); Bibi will never concede that anything short of bombing will suffice; and the GOP will never stop pandering to the right both here and in Israel.

SlyFoxy1 said:

I never thought in my lifetime I would see Saudi Arabia as a bigger ally to Israel than the United States.

Iran gets 8 Billion (4 in aid, 4in sanction relief), in exchange they "agree" to limit their uranium enrichment to a certain amount ( read: NOT STOP uranium enrichment) and no "deal" on existing centrifuges.
The UN weapon inspectors are allowed to make inspections of TAPED footage of nuclear facilities daily. (Last I heard tapes can be edited)

Nothing Obama does makes sense.

A few short weeks ago he wanted to BOMB Syria for bombing Syria. Now he wants to "deal" with Iran, who has made no bones about wanting to annihilate the US & Israel.
He is willing to trust Iran, Need I remind you of our past with Iran? (Who, BTW is still holding a US pastor - nothing mentioned about this).

Next up, Kim Jeon Un & Obama play golf, a gentlemans game which relies on honesty. Smh

Sly,

You were right to oppose President Obama's misguided proposal to bomb Syria. However, keep in mind that he corrected that mistake and is successfully disarming Syria of its chemical weapons peacefully.

As you point out, Saudi Arabia and the Netanyahu government are alone in opposing the agreement. However, recall that Saudi Arabia and Netanyahu wanted us to bomb Syria and were disappointed with the peaceful outcome.

Regarding the agreement with Iran, real conservatives were authors, in addition to President Obama. For example, British Conservative Party Foreign Secretary William Hague:

24 November 2013 Last updated at 09:57 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25077109

William Hague: Iran nuclear deal 'good for whole world'

Foreign Secretary William Hague has hailed the nuclear agreement between Western powers and Iran as "good for the whole world".

An interim deal to restrict Iran's nuclear programme was reached after five days of talks in Geneva.

Writing on Twitter, Mr Hague said it was an "important and encouraging first-stage agreement with Iran".

Iran has agreed to curb some of its nuclear activities in return for about £4.3bn ($7bn) in sanctions relief.

"This is an important moment, an encouraging moment, in our relations with Iran and in our efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation in the world," Mr Hague told journalists.
'Mutual respect'

The deal would mean that Iran's nuclear programme "won't be able to go forward over the next six months, over the six months of this agreement, and in some respects will be rolled back", Mr Hague continued.

"And that, we hope, will give us the opportunity to negotiate a comprehensive and final settlement of these issues.

"It is necessary and in the interests of the world for there to be an international agreement, about Iran's nuclear programme, that can lead then to a comprehensive settlement to us all being assured that that programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes."

On Twitter, the foreign secretary added: "This agreement shows it is possible to work with Iran, and through diplomacy address intractable problems.

"Tonight's agreement with Iran [is] good for the whole world, including Middle Eastern countries and the people of Iran themselves.

"Negotiations were painstaking. Tomorrow hard work begins of implementing and building on the agreement."

The EU's foreign policy chief Baroness Ashton said: "Of course, when you get to the detail of trying to finalise the agreement, in a sense that is the hardest part.

"But we've done it in a spirit of cooperation, good atmosphere, and although it has been intensive, and very, very detailed, it has also been done with a real sense of mutual respect.

"I'm delighted that we've got there."

US President Barack Obama has also welcomed the deal.

"We have pursued intensive diplomacy," he said, "and today that diplomacy opened up a new path towards a world that is more secure, a future in which we can verify that Iran's nuclear programme is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.

"If Iran does not fully meet its commitments during this six-month phase, we will turn off the relief and ratchet up the pressure."

Iran agreed to give better access to inspectors and halt some of its work on uranium enrichment.

President Hassan Rouhani said the deal recognised Iran's nuclear "rights".

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the agreement a "historic mistake".

drummerboy said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

I never thought in my lifetime I would see Saudi Arabia as a bigger ally to Israel than the United States.

Iran gets 8 Billion (4 in aid, 4in sanction relief), in exchange they "agree" to limit their uranium enrichment to a certain amount ( read: NOT STOP uranium enrichment) and no "deal" on existing centrifuges.
The UN weapon inspectors are allowed to make inspections of TAPED footage of nuclear facilities daily. (Last I heard tapes can be edited)

Nothing Obama does makes sense.

A few short weeks ago he wanted to BOMB Syria for bombing Syria. Now he wants to "deal" with Iran, who has made no bones about wanting to annihilate the US & Israel.
He is willing to trust Iran, Need I remind you of our past with Iran? (Who, BTW is still holding a US pastor - nothing mentioned about this).

Next up, Kim Jeon Un & Obama play golf, a gentlemans game which relies on honesty. Smh

So sad that you and your ilk can never get on the side of history.

my "ilk"
I expect no less from a lemming.

And I expect no less from someone who never learns from being wrong all the time.

e.g. wouldn't we be so much better off if we had bombed Syria?

SlyFoxy1 said:

I never thought in my lifetime I would see Saudi Arabia as a bigger ally to Israel than the United States.

Iran gets 8 Billion (4 in aid, 4in sanction relief), in exchange they "agree" to limit their uranium enrichment to a certain amount ( read: NOT STOP uranium enrichment) and no "deal" on existing centrifuges.

Yes, they need the centrifuges to continue enriching to 3.5%. Why should they not be allowed? 3.5% is commercial grade Uranium used in commercial power reactors. That type of Uranium is held by every country that has a reactor - Japan, Germany, etc.

This is a good deal because the Uranium they enriched to 20% will removed. They will have daily international monitoring and inspection to ensure they do not enrich beyond 3.5%. We're ahead of this game with this deal. Sadly, I'm sure some in congress will be relentless in screwing this.

Sanctions did not work in stopping their Uranium enrichment. If anything, the sanctions accelerated their program. When the sanctions started, under Bush, Iran had 170 centrifuges. They now have 19,000.

Your type is never happy with what Obama does. When the Syrian crisis happened you criticized him because he was thinking of bombing Syria. When he did not and the crisis was defused, did you laud him? I doubt it. I'll also bet if Obama took an initial position that he would not bomb Syria you would have criticized that. No matter what Obama does or has done, its always wrong with you.

As for the Saudi's being allies of Israel? What a joke. The Saudi's are only interested in the Sunni/Shiite conflict. Its like the love between the protestants and Catholics of the 16th Century. The Saudi's are dominated by the most reactionary Sunni branch, the Wahhabi movement. Which procreated Osam Bin Laden and funded his Al Quada movement.

From the OPEC Oil Crisis to 2003, the Saudis had spent at least $87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad at a rising rate.[26] The bulk of this funding goes towards the construction and operating expenses of mosques, madrasas, and other religious institutions that preach Wahhabism. It also supports imam training; mass media and publishing outlets; distribution of textbooks and other literature; and endowments to universities (in exchange for influence over the appointment of Islamic scholars). Some of the hundreds of thousands of non-Saudis who live in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf have been influenced by Wahhabism and preach Wahhabism in their home country upon their return. Agencies controlled by the Kingdom's Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da'wah and Guidance are responsible for outreach to non-Muslim residents and are converting hundreds of non-Muslims into Islam every year.

Most of our Middle East troubles are due to reactionary religious groups. Their constant stirring of the pot, creating strife and tanking peace initiatives. The ones who know their God the the one and only real God and anyone believing anything else will be deservedly cast eternally into Hell. Reactionary Saudi's, reactionary ultra-orthodox Jewish sects and reactionary Ayatollah's from countries like Iran.

http://youtu.be/FO725Hbzfls

RSutter said:

The esteemed senator from Texas pleasured us with one of his "cogent" comments. The WH must be filled with miracle workers to get the UK, Russia, China, France and Germany to collude and conspire in this distraction.

Cornyn is an embarrassment. But then so is Texas for voting him in.

Projection. The GOP uses their attacks on "Obamacare" as a distraction from everything else.
It is they who are Obamacare 24/7.