The epic season of spinning the Iran deal begins! Which side are you on? And what can you do to help Obama and Hassan Rouhani get back to Go? The world demands your participation!
The Iranian president is elated:
A day that will remain in the historical memory of the #Iranian nation.
Obama’s weekly address today– anticipating “a robust debate” about war. Not a word about Israel:
Matt Lee of AP has been very good:Here in the United States, I expect a robust debate. We’ll keep Congress and the American people fully briefed on the substance of the deal. As we engage in this debate, let’s remember—we really only have three options for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program: bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities—which will only set its program back a few years—while starting another war in the Middle East; abandoning negotiations and hoping for the best with sanctions—even though that’s always led to Iran making more progress in its nuclear program; or a robust and verifiable deal like this one that peacefully prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
As President and Commander in Chief, I firmly believe that the diplomatic option—a comprehensive, long-term deal like this—is by far the best option. For the United States. For our allies. And for the world.
People seem to forget that the entire idea of negotiation is for both sides to walk away claiming victory.
The opposition in Israel and Iran are mirror images. AP:
Hard-liners in Iran and the Israeli government both condemned the framework deal on curbing Tehran’s nuclear program on Friday, from opposite directions but for the same reason: The agreement, they said, gives away too much.
How far do you have to read in this summary before you get the mustache-curling villain? Here is the Israeli Prime Minister:
This deal would pose a grave danger to the region and to the world and would threaten the very survival of the state of Israel… It would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure. Such a deal paves Iran’s path to a bomb…. It would gravely increase the risks of terrible war… Iran is a country that openly calls for Israel’s destruction and openly actively works toward that end… that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons. In addition, Israel demands that any final clear and ambiguous Israel’s right to exist.
And here is Bill Kristol. He sounds petulant and vituperative; but notice that he is appealing to Republicans.
Obamadeal like Obamacare: Should fight to stop it. If fail at first, keep on fighting. Can’t be fixed. Must be repealed and replaced.
Many arrows in Congress’s quiver: No sanctions relief unless go-anywhere, anytime inspections regime.
The State Department briefing yesterday addressed the Israeli PM’s demand that Iran must recognize Israel. Netanyahu got the brushoff.
One of the things that the prime minister said was that any final deal that’s reached in June, if that happens, needs to demand that Iran recognize Israel’s right to exist. Is that an appropriate thing to include in a deal of this sort, in the U.S.’s view?
[Spokesperson Marie] HARF: Well, this is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue. We have purposefully kept that separate from every other issue. That issue is complicated enough to deal with on its own. No, this is an agreement that doesn’t deal with any other issues, nor should it, and that’s what we’re focused on.
Harf says that the Gulf Cooperation Council will get red carpet treatment from President Obama. But there is no invitation to Netanyahu to come back here after his appearance before Congress.
And are we to expect that prime minister of Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu, will come to Camp David as well?
MS. HARF: I don’t think that’s what the President announced, Said.
QUESTION: And I know he did not announce.
MS. HARF: I think he talked about the GCC.
QUESTION: Is that something to be expected?
MS. HARF: I would – I have no way to answer that question. I have not heard anything about that. I have nothing to read out in terms of possible meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The President spoke with him. Our – his views on this are clear, but I haven’t heard anything indicating that he would be coming to the United States.
MJ Rosenberg says the Obama diplomacy will work:
I expect the Saudis to abandon Israel on
#Irandeal, leaving Israel i its favorite position: Alone again, naturally. World’s stupidest Jews.
Here is a great/awful video from another neocon front org that states that Obama is Neville Chamberlain making deals with the Nazis, and also a bad golfer. Recommended for you today by Bill Kristol.
The neocons are flailing, IMHO. Trita Parsi points out that Obama has won the left and the center with the deal.AIPAC Dems on the Hill are twistin in the wind, for now. Says The Hill:
Several top Democrats are voicing grave reservations over the Obama administration’s emerging deal governing the future of Iran’s nuclear program.Reps. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) said they welcome a discussion on the framework agreement unveiled Thursday, but harbor deep doubts that the Iranians can be trusted to make good on their commitments.
Ben Cardin of MD, another AIPAC Dem, is not sure if he’s signing on to the Sen. Robert Corker legislation that could undermine the deal.
Democrats will have to decide whether they want to openly rebuke the administration’s diplomatic efforts.
The new top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ben Cardin of Maryland, sounded like he was still making up his mind.
Chuck Schumer is also layin low.
J Street Democrats are trying to solidify the support, says The Hill.
Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) is also voicing optimism the deal will preclude a nuclear Iran.“I believe this is a deal worth supporting, but we must wait to ensure there is no backsliding on any parameters before a final agreement is signed. I commend President Obama and Secretary Kerry, as well as our global partners, for this breakthrough that holds the promise of a safer world and more stable Middle East.”
J Street is clear. This is about war. It takes Netanyahu on for his belligerent rhetoric.
And the alternative they proposed is…?
@AP: Israel’s Netanyahu says his Cabinet united in “strongly opposing” proposed Iran nuclear deal
Liberal Zionist Gershom Gorenberg is working to shore up the support.
Dems who at last criticize Bibi need public backing from liberal Jews, esp after Iran deal
Gorenberg cites a Prospect column, “The Insane Logic Underlying Republican Opposition to Iran Deal”.
This is funny. Matt Lee addresses a neocon:
“
@cerenomri: At this point the admin’s game on#Iran needs members of Congress to be LITERALLY ILLITERATE for it to work.”So it could?
Jeremy Pressman of UConn spots the AIPAC Dems’ exit strategy, a tactic likely to be used by centrists, Mark Warner, Richard Blumenthal, and others:
Top Democrats express “great skepticism” over Iran nuclear deal: One scenario: rather than immediate embrace, some Democrats act skeptical & concerned but later say they r persuaded. Political optics
Where will the New York Times be? David Bromwich writes, “Take a look at the William Broad Broad piece on Fordo in the Times today, in which one MIT centrifuge expert is quoted–one. It doesn’t rise to the condition of a sketch for a fraction of an article, but they published it fast, to start the spoiling.” Broad in the NYT:
Many nuclear experts and American officials expected that the negotiations would end with Fordo’s complete dismantlement. David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington research group that monitors Iran’s nuclear program, wrote early last year that “a key demand will be that this site close down.”
But the preliminary deal announced in Switzerland on Thursday instead calls for the site’s conversion exclusively to peaceful research.
Gareth Porter seems hopeful but also points out how many details of the agreement are unresolved. At antiwar. com:
The US text thus seems to indicate that the Iranians won their demand that the Western powers give up their scheme for a “gradual” or “phased” withdrawal of sanctions. But the Iranians had wanted some of the sanctions removed each time they completed the implementation of a commitment, and instead the payoff comes only after the final step taken…
The Obama administration may well be inclined to facilitate the provision of early sanctions relief. But the political dynamics swirling around US and IAEA policies toward Iran suggest that the processes of IAEA assessment and delivery of sanctions may not go as smoothly as Iran would hope.
Looking even further ahead, Iran is certainly concerned about how a future US administration could and would implement the agreement. Iran was insisting that the UN Security Council resolution repealing previous resolutions with a new one reflecting the comprehensive agreement be passed before the change in administration in Washington in 2017, according to the source in contact with the negotiators. It remains unclear whether the P5+1 agreed to that demand.
Peter Beinart is very good.
The details of the Iran deal matter. But ending America’s cold war with Iran matters much more.
He links his article in the Atlantic saying that the deal will have great benefits across the region. I wanted to write that article! Pax Persiana.
When America’s relationship with the Soviet Union thawed, civil wars across the world petered out because local combatants found their superpower patrons unwilling to send arms and write checks.
Isolating a modern powerful nation like Iran forever is inefficient in countless ways. Rouhani:
Centrifuges have to spin and peoples lives, economy have to move forward. Today we have gotten closer to that objective.
More unexpected support for the deal. Matt Lee reports:
Must have woken up in an alternate universe.
@NSCPress citing Bill O’Reilly in defense of#Iran framework.
“Chuck Schumer is still layin low.” That is to say, “Brer Schumer, he lay low.” Very low. And people are trying to “get” him on his close relation with — the banks! (Any AIPAC presence in the CEO-group for the banks?)
strange that why didn’t Netanyahu demand Iran to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
when we are on the subject
Ms. Harf correctly states that Iran recognizing Israel right to exist (which the PLO already does) has nothing to do with the nuclear deal.
maybe if they applied the same logic to Palestine /Israel peace deal and separate Israel demand to be recognized as a Jewish state from the establishment of the state of Palestine, the two sate solution would have work.
The neocons will struggle in their “protect Israel” campaign.
More democrats now view Mexico(!) as an ally than Israel.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-ally-Democrats-Canada-Great-Britain/2015/04/02/id/636106/
(Would link to Rasmussen right away but they have subscription service)
One of my doubts about the agreement was the ability of the IAEA to find excuses not to give Iran the clean bill of health only they can give, and since the IAEA and its current head Amano are heavily influenced by the US, I could see problems down the road, however Gareth Porter said.. “Iran, however, was demanding that those sanctions be lifted immediately upon delivering on their commitments under agreement. And a source close to Iranian negotiators told Middle East Eye that Iran was confident it could deliver on all of the actions related to its enrichment program and Arak within a matter of months”. If that is the case we should know ‘in months’ rather than years, whether the deal will pan out.http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2015/04/03/iran-won-upfront-sanctions-relief-but-with-potential-snags/
I’m with you, HarryLaw. U.S. Influence on the IAEA is only one of the areas where our arm twisting and belligerence will make it nearly impossible for Iran to adhere to this or any other deal. As I’ve stated in comments on other articles here at MW, it’s likely this deal is being set up as a trigger to justify an attack on Iran.
And as has been pointed out elsewhere, we probably don’t need a justification; we’ll do whatever we want, as always. But if we have triggers like this in place it will give our impending illegal war of aggression against Iran at least some air of legitimacy.
It’s a con being implemented by the shepherds of Empire. Not the first. Not the last. With the U.S. track record of war mongering, deception, and instigation of illegal wars, it’s difficult, if not impossible (certainly not advisable) to believe any of this alleged diplomacy is sincere.