LyrArc Article Gist
Many of the 255 Comments on this article in the NYT say it is misleading or grossly misleading title. Michael Crowley of NYT quotes Wertheim for his conclusion that there seems to be a sense that the world is out of control, there is chaos under president Biden. This is subtly presented and clearly wrong. Wertheim is the author of a book that questions America's exceptionalism, and says "isolationism" was somehow concocted by policy makers such as Eisenhower and Dulles, both Republicans for a postwar world built on American supremacy. What Crowley and Wertheim do is put their very idea of asking questions about policy which is a part of the discussion into misrepresenting through misinformation about what happened. Biden has acted with courage to close wars no other president not Reagan/ Rumsfeld who started the conflict with Iran by arming Iraq's unprovoked war on Iran, not Bush who initiated the war in Afghanistan, not Obama and Trump who did not close the war in the mountains around Kabul that is a "graveyard for Empires" - the Maratha Empire in India in the 1700's that opened the door to British rule in India, not the British Empire wisely staying out of it, the Soviet Union beginning its decline there, and the US mired in it similar to the Soviets. Crowley/Wertheim are only making things worse- Netanyahu was emboldened by the former president and made a major security failure. Putin miscalculated in Ukraine, Biden simply acted in the way any wise American president would -strengthened NATO with Finland and Sweden, providing reasons for Russian restraint yet without escalating the conflict. To say this is chaos is to misinform and misrepresent, and favor the very Supremacy that former president Trump proposes as policy based on US power. By contrast Biden' approach is peace through strength from building close relations between partners in Europe and Asia, not provocation or supremacy. Wertheim is only one voice in a larger discussion not the authority he is presented as. For Wertheim to say "isolationism" was a bogey and point to 1950 as the point when it was created is simply wrong. It existed in some form from the early days of the Republic. Washington was an advocate of not involving the fledgling Republic in foreign entanglements of France even though it was an ally. It is not that response to isolationism is the cause of America embracing the role of leading the Free World as it is now. It is simply the situation leaders faced. Truman faced it when Soviets planned insurgencies in Turkey and Greece which would not exist as democracies today without Truman. And across Eastern Europe Hungary 1956 Ike acted cautiously. Czechoslovakia 1968 LBJ Johnson acted cautiously already in the wrong war with Vietnamese nationalism.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Hard liners in the Iranian parliament include Hamid Rasaee and Ali Taheri, and other members from the days of president Ahamdinejad. In the media this includes Hosssein Shariatmadari, editor of newspaper Kayhan. They oppose any concessions in nuclear negotiations by Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, and any cooperation with the U.S. on issues related to Syria and Iraq. As negotiations face another deadline of March 25, 2015, Israel and the U.S. Congress are pushing for a ratcheting up of sanctions, while the Obama administration seeks more time to complete negotiations. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamanei has urged conservative critics to avoid discussion of negotiations, also setting low expectations for settlement.

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial says the Corker-Cardin compromise that requires the U.S. president to submit any nuclear deal with Iran to the U.S. Congress for debate, is the best option for both Democrats and Republicans who are skeptical of such a deal. It says amendments by senators Cruz and Rubio will not be effective. What the Corker-Cardin compromise developed by senators Corker and Cardin of the Foreign Relations Committee accomplishes, is letting the American people through their elected representatives get a full and complete debate on the merits and demerits of the deal. Democrats in the Senate are also concerned about their election chances after Mr. Obama leaves office, and will want to have a fair debate of the pros and cons before voting, says the Journal. This debate will bring more light to the questions that worry critics the most- how will compliance by Iran be secured, and can snapback sanctions work if China, Russia and other European nations go the other way. Congressional review puts a higher level of scrutiny for any agreement before it moves forward. A requirement that the government submit a review every 90 days on compliance to Congress also gives president Obama's successor a chance to reassess the situation....

LyrArc Article Gist
Lally Weymouth of the Washington Post interviews Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak on June 20, 2012. On the negotiations of the P5+1 countries with Iran in Baghdad, Istanbul and Moscow, Barak says the Iranians are simply buying time, hoping that by being a little forthcoming they can delay giving up nuclear weapons programs capabilities and see if the situation changes with a new President in office in the U.S.. The Iranians are trying to reach a "zone of immunity," the way Pakistan and N. Korea did, and it will take a resolute determination on the part of the U.S. the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese to prevent a nuclear Iran and nuclear proliferation. By the third meeting in Moscow it should be clear whether the Iranians are willing to give up capabilities that lead to nuclear weapons. Ayatollah Khamanei is the person in charge in Iran, but decisions are made collectively with the moderate Ayatollahs still ayatollahs, says Barak. The addition of the Khadima party to the coalition government of prime minister Netanyahu increases Israel's desire for dialogue and seeking progress on a peace with the Palestinian Authority- if not a peace arrangement then even unilateral steps towards peace by both sides. The way forward in Syria is for the U.S. to talk with the Russians about a new government. The important thing is for the removal of the Assad family, the entire Syrian state does not need to be dismantled as happened with the Baath party in Iraq. Israel continues to build a fence in the Sinai facing Egypt, as it fears infiltration during the period of civil strife in Egypt. Israel views Egypt from the standpoint of any future Egyptian government honoring its treaty committments with Israel, otherwise says Barak it is upto Egypt to decide its future government....

LyrArc Article Gist
The minimum non-negotiable "breakout window" for 2015 nuclear negotiations of the EU, the U.S. and other nations with Iran, is a period of 12 months. The term "breakout window" refers to the period in which Iran decides to breakout of a signed nuclear agreement and rushes to develop nuclear weapons. It should take at least 12 months for Iran to be able to develop a weapon so that there is time to develop an effective response to the threat to world peace.

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial raises serious concerns about the outlines of the nuclear deal with Iran- the AP Protocol does not provide for any time, any place inspections of nuclear facilities, could Iran evade inspections by developing a new facility such as it did with the Fordo complex underground after 2006. After all it reminds readers that Iran signed nuclear protocol agreements in 2003, but failed to observe them, and set them aside altogether after 2006. And Iran is not like reaching an agreement with Costa Rica or Netherlands, says WSJ, it could look good on paper, but with monitoring weak and the Iranian intentions not clear, a lot can go wrong. One of the principal concerns says the WSJ, is the nuclear weapons technologies spreading in the Middle East to other countries as Iran gets a weapon, leading to a disastrous war a decade from now. It says this is why president Obama's response to criticism that its this or war is not enough. A lot of the details says WSJ, have still to be worked out....

LyrArc Article Gist
Reited Gen Gantz appears to be the likely head of a new government after winning the most seats in parliament. Policy towards Iran is not likely to change. But a Gantz led government is likely to reduce the divisiveness in the country, and provide a more unifying effort in Israeli society. The role of religious groups in daily life would also be held back. Better relations with Jewish people in America would result and peace negotiations with Palestinians would be encouraged. The prime minister would concentrate less power in his hands. By temperament Gantz is a quiet leader who preferred not to engage in the back and forth attacks in the election campaign even when Mr. Netanyahu  did not hesitate to do so. As the head of the military from 2011 to 2015 he also has the confidence of people in Israel looking for a new start after a long period of Netanyahu rule. The current prime minister could be indicted soon after a hearing next month on charges of bribery and fraud. Mr. Trump has said that U.S. relationship is not with any leader but with the country Israel. Gantz makes it clear after Netanyahu's style of politics has rocked Israel for many years- "We will bring about a real change in priorities, and heal Israeli society in all its parts." Mr. Gantz has said that he think the Obama administration could have done more in securing a better nuclear deal with Iran. Yet at an event in 2015 when the deal was being set, Mr Gantz said he also saw "the half full part of the glass." That the deal would keep Iran 10 or 15 years from making a nuclear weapon "with the right price." At this juncture in world affairs this is important because Mr. Trump has shown flexibility in dealing with Iran following the firing of National Security Adviser Bolton. Trump held back on a response at several points during the attacks in the Straits of Hormuz and the taking of ships hostage by Iran and the UK. The attacks on Saudi oil facilities and the difficulty of protecting oil installations in the region, Iran's increasingly difficult position under tight U.S. sanctions and pressure on Asian buyers of Iranian oil to cut back purchases, the efforts of Japan and India dependent on Saudi and Iranian oil to reduce tensions, all point to a new policy in the region with a new Israeli government playing a useful role to keep policy control in the hands of Asian countries dependent on oil supplies for their economies, and in the hands of a U.S. president better informed about a policy course that is in U.S. interests of avoiding unnecessary engagements overseas when there are other pressing priorities. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ reminds readers of China's warning about North Korea's nuclear weapons in April 2015, and says the nuclear agreements with North Korea never worked. It sees a similiar situation with the nuclear agreement the Obama administration is working out with Iran.

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
Hubbard and Erdbrink report on U.S. president Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia to begin a new chapter in relations with the Gulf nations and the Saudis. Under president Obama the U.S. distanced itself from the Saudis and the Gulf nations, preferring to pursue a policy of closer relations with Iran and signing the Iran nuclear deal. This included a policy of staying out of Syria to the point of turning down a decision to deploy U.S. airpower to maintain no-fly zones to protect refugees. Syrian government forces fighting rebels were supported by Iran. The new policy is dictated by the new conditions in the Middle East. The U.S. has sought since the presidency of Reagan to balance the power relations in the region. With the nuclear deal signed and Iran respecting the deal according to independent reports, the U.S. allied with Iran in the battle against Islamic State in Iraq,  a shift was needed to balance the support provided to Iran by Russia which worsened the refugee crisis in Syria. The Republican party and Mr. Trump were critical of the Obama Iran policy during the nuclear deal negotiations. The safety of Israel is also a factor as non-state actors were supported by Iran threatening Israeli security. For these reasons the shift is an effort to rebalance the relations in the region. The arms deal in its size and president Trump's statement that Iran had "fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror," can be seen as this rebalancing. A business aspect of the large arms deal is that it will promote job growth in the defense industry in the U.S.. Other countries including Germany have seen growth in their defense industry. This is not the best way forward for the Middle East, yet it is a way the U.S. and nations in the region are adjusting to realities- the collapse of the Arab Spring from within and without the help from outside, the sectarian conflict arising from the Shiite pushback from Iran following the Baathist and Sunni control of Iraq which collapsed with the U.S.invasion, where the majority of people are Shiite yet with a strong Sunni presence. Elections brought Shiites in power, leading to a Sunni response in the form of Islami State caliphate move into Mosul, Iraq's second largest city after Baghdad. A decade of conflict and the efforts by the Bush administration ended in failure and sectarian conflict, resulting in the U.S. policy of rebalancing in favor of Iran to negotiate the nuclear deal. In this sense the arms deal does not solve anything. A similar rebalancing under Reagan by arming one side, followed by arming the other, led to involvement with ground forces under president Bush. It only leaves the region poor after years of sanctions against Iran to the point where a NYT reporter was not sure whether it was safe to fly from Tehran to Mashad with Iran Air because of the lack of spare parts for the airline. War torn, with millions of refugees in Syria and Iraq, the region remains broken in many ways, waiting for a sensible non sectarian view to prevail in the interest of the people in the region. The election of Rouhani in Iran by 57% of the vote is only a sign that young people in the region given a chance would opt for a different course in future. The rest of Asia has moved forward and shows a path that can be followed. ...