LyrArc Article Gist
Iran's Ahmadinejad's speaks to reporters and editors in New York before his address to the UN General Assembly. He says: "During a historical phase, the Israelis come into the picture and are then eliminated." This WSJ editorial finds President Obama's response and his address at the General Assembly of the United Nations inadequate to convince Iran's government and ruling mullahs that the program has to be ended. Sanctions have not produced the needed results and have only gradually been tightened showing a lack of resolve. President Obama failed to speak up for young people and university students in Iran who held demonstrations against the Ahmadinejad regime when it changed the election results- just as he did not speak up for the young people fighting a dictatorship in Libya and Egypt, or just as has failed to do for the young people fighting today in Syria. In this respect Obama has abandoned America's role as a beacon of hope for countries around the world. It is left to American media and public opinion to vigorously express these ideas in unison, as it has already done every step of the way. Clearly Ahmadinejad does not speak for the Iranian people, especially the young generation, and Egypt's president Morsi like every other Arab leader may have problems with Israeli policy but sees the need for peaceful coexistence. It would be more accurate to say that the Iranian people, like the people of Syria, are trapped as Morsi put it to the General Assembly, in "the tragedy of our era," moving from dictatorship to dictatorship....

LyrArc Article Gist
A second round of talks in Baghdad concludes after the first round in Istanbul, Turkey. No agreement is reached. A third round of talks is planned in Moscow for June 18-19, 2012. The bloc of countries negotiating with Iran is composed of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, known as the P5+1. Talks were led by the EU's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, and by Saeed Jalili for the Iranians. Ashton said they had found common ground but significant difference remain.

LyrArc Article Gist
A bipartisan compromise in the U.S. Senate provides for a 30 day review of the Iran nuclear deal by Congress. The White House accepted this after enough Democrats favored the idea for the 67 votes to override a presidential veto.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Obama invited NYT's columnist Thomas Friedman to the White House for an interview on Saturday afternoon April 4, 2015. Here Friedman gives president Obama's response to his questions, and Obama's concerns about the heated rhetoric in the U.S. and Israel on the negotiations with Iran detracting and distracting from his key goals of protecting U.S. interests and Israel. On the Sunni states, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Obama points out that there are some tough conversations needed about changes inside their societies which pose a greater threat to the governments than Iran. Obama says he understands perfectly that Israel and the Jewish people after their experience of the last hundred years are determined to not let Iran develop a nuclear weapon, and their right to be concerned that the agreement could let Iran clandestinely develop one. Obama says the verification is extensive and covers any facility in Iran, any suspicion about secret facilities, yet it leaves the subsequent decisions if Iran created difficulties, to a international body over which the U.S., UK, France, have no control. This is a principal issue for critics of the negotiated agreement. No mention is made of why Iran simply discarded the option of sending the atomic material to Russia to be processed into nuclear rods for the Bushehr nuclear plant built by Russia only a few days before the final outline was developed. And why the U.S., with allies Germany, France, UK and Japan, did not offer the Iranians an economic aid package if needed in return for the billions Iranians invested for that atomic material, to ensure that the atomic materials are shipped out of the country- to create a nuclear agreement that would be credible to all parties. The economic aid would benefit Iran modernize its oil industry, including refining operations, meet basic import needs, and provide tangible proof to the Iranian people of our best intentions for the future, that president Obama strongly espouses in the interview. The interview does show the quandary president Obama faces in Iran for strong action, that is a result of failed policies with Iran since the Eisenhower administration's intervention 1953 during the Cold War that displaced the elected government of Mosaddegh in Iran and setup the Shah's regime in 1956, the support of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the war against Iran, which Obama mentions in this intervew. In the light of the repeated failures of the U.S. policies a Democratic party leader faces increasing reservations for taking strong action against Iran's development of nuclear weapons capabilities, preferring to exhaust every diplomatic channel, and take risks in the hope that time will give the Iranian people an opportunity to to reintegrate in the global community and pursue the peaceful development of nuclear energy. This strain in president Obama's thinking is evident throughout the interview with Friedman. Other aspects of president Obama's policy in the Middle East shared in the interview are about supporting the Sunni states in some areas, and Iran in some areas, at the same time as the nuclear issue is "put in a box" and separated from the regional conflicts. Friedman presents this as the Obama doctrine, yet it appears to be coming after a series of improvisations in foreign policy following a failure to act in 2011-2013, when the "once in a lifetime" opportunities presented by the Arab Spring were not taken up by the Obama administration, leading to the region's current disintegration....

LyrArc Article Gist
Sanger and Gordon point to critical elements of the nuclear deal that were needed but will now be missing. Iranian negotiators now say they will not ship atomic fuel out of the country. For the agreement to be serious and credible about Iran's peaceful intentions for the use of nuclear energy, it was important that the atomic fuel be shipped to Russia, where it would be converted into specialized fuel rods for the Bushehr nuclear power plant. If Iran at some point decided to opt out of the agreement the use of this atomic fuel for peaceful purposes cannot be assured.

LyrArc Article Gist
A study group at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy sends a public letter to U.S. president Obama on the Iran negotiations. It says the nuclear agreement negotiated with Iran "may fall short of the administration's own standard of a 'good' agreement." It is signed by some of Mr. Obama's main advisors during the first term. Some of these officials told the NYT that the letter was the result of serious concern that Mr. Kerry and other negotiators were moving towards major concessions that would weaken the international inspections of Iran's facilities, back away from making Iran reveal suspected past work on weapons, and allow Iranian R&D to move ahead with making nuclear fuel once the accord expires. The five Obama advisors from the first term who signed the letter are: Dennis Ross, Middle East negotiator, David Petraeus, CIA director, Robert Einhorn, State Department proliferation expert, Gary Samore, chief advisor on nuclear policy, Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman Jt. Chiefs of Staff. Gary Samore is president of the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran. The letter was also signed by President Bush's national security advisor during his second term, Stephen Hadley. Such a large group of advisors to presidents Bush and Obama familiar with the details of Iran's development of nuclear technology and weapons capabilities could give Republicans support to kill any agreement that falls short on inspections during Congressional Review. On this key factor where only vague assurances are made by the Iranian side- such as signing an International Atomic Agency convention giving inspectors broad rights to visit suspicious sites, followed by Ayatollah Khamanei ruling out military sites- the letter is specific. Inspections it says " must include military (including Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps), and other sensitive facilities. Iran must not be able to deny or delay timely access to any site anywhere in the country." Inspections work rigorously done is set as a precondition before any significant relief from economic sanctions on Iran....

LyrArc Article Gist
Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post cites the Pew poll of September 3-7, 2015, on the Iran nuclear deal of July 2015, showing increase in skepticism about the deal's provisions by people who are informed to some extent (a little or a lot) about its details- 57% opposing to 27% supporting. The strongly partisan opinion on the issue, and the lobbying on both sides, including bringing Iraq WMD into the picture as noted by Dana Milbank in another column in the Washington Post, overstates each case. This draws attention away from the actual provisions. About 30% have no opinion it appears because the issue of this magnitude involving nuclear weapons proliferation has become politicized when it should be examined only on its merits, where public opinion would be shaped by the details of the deal itself, not who has negotiated it. The Pew Research Center poll shows 21% support the agreement negotiated with Iran, 49% disapprove, 30% offer no opinion. This compares with a poll taken 6 weeks before in July 2015 showing 33% supporting it and 45% opposing it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Israel outlined its own proposals for a nuclear agreement on April 6, 2014. Israel's Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz, says any deal must include Iran cease all nuclear research and development activity, remove its enriched uranium stockpile from the country, reduce the number of centrifuges to below what was agreed to in the outline that emerged from talks with Iran in April 2015, closing of the underground facility at Fordow that was built clandestinely in the early 2000's. Steinitz said- "The deal has to be made on the assumption that Iran might violate it."

LyrArc Article Gist
Chuck Hagel on the need to bring in more countries to handle difficult situations such as the one the US faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says thats why the world now has a G20 and not a G8. No country can face these situations alone especially when there is a mutual interest of many countries in these situations. He calls it a 20th century reaction to 21st century realities. He says the 2 wars cost more than a trillion dollars. One sees a new respect for international institutions such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, and GATT renamed WTO, even with Republicans. Chuck Hagel's point makes a lot of sense and is generally accepted in people's understanding of the situation from the Defence Department to the Administration, and among respected politicians. It is putting it onto practice that is the hard part. As Hagel puts it, it is important to remember what Lyndon Johnson told Senatior Russell, that he knew the Vietnam war could not be won, and yet he did not want to pull out and be the first American President to lose a war. This is a contradiction because if it can't be won its going to be lost under the next President or the one after that, in this case Gerald Ford. Hagel says it not ours to win and lose. Here he points to the interconnectedness and shared interests of all nations. Every great threat to the U.S., whether it is economic, terrorism, nuclear weapons proliferation, health pandemics, environmental degradation, energy or water and food shortages, is also a threat to global partners ansd rivals. So its wrong to view engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan through the lens that says its about winning or losing. And he asks win what? Too many cultural, ethnic and religious dynamics are involved for any one nation to control. Hagel concludes by saying that the US, the Defense Department, the Obama administration, must get this right, as it affects the global architecture for the next generation. Fresh thinking is needed. Single issue engagement is obsolete in the 21st century in dealing with global partners or rivals, or countries with aspects of both....

LyrArc Article Gist
This televised debate of Republican presidential candidates focussed on Iran's development of a nuclear weapon. Rick Perry said he would impose sanctions on Iran's central bank, something the Obama administration is reluctant to do because it might disrupt international oil markets. Romney and Gingrich said they would use military action if other measures failed. Huntsman called for a complete withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, saying: "This nation's future is not in Afghanistan. this nation's future is not in Iraq." Ron Paul said hw opposed military interventions in conflicts overseas. Perry and Gingrich said U.S. aid to Pakistan should be suspended because Pakistan was not a reliable partner.