LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Obama repeatedly compared the Iran nuclear deal vote in Congress to the 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq under president George W. Bush, in a speech at American University. President John Kennedy made a speech on a strategy for peace at American University in Washington D.C. on June 10, 1963, offering negotiations as away to a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union. Obama said the "choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war." The nuclear deal faces bipartisan opposition in Congress on grounds of weak verification, doubts about Iran's intentions, lifting of a weapons embargo including ballistic missiles, and lifting of economic sanctions with snapback seen as unrealistic, and support limited to Democrats in Congress. Compared to the speech by Kennedy which was hopeful- " in the final analysis, our most common link is that we all inhabit this same planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future's. And we are all mortal." It was also a response to Soviet Union's head Nikita Krushchev's letter to Kennedy of Dec. 1962 following the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962, saying "the time has come now to put an end once and for all to all nuclear tests." Compared to the enthusiasm with which the Kennedy speech was received, the Obama speech brought up the divisions of the wars in Afghanistan and Iran, in which many Democrats including Senator Hillary Clinton voted to support the Iraq war, and missed the power of president Kennedy's (and Krushchev's) words of 1962. The last minute inclusion of a lifting of an arms embargo including ballistic missiles," created doubts about Iran's intentions in the U.S. Congress, unlike Kruschev and Kennedy's decisive response on the nuclear issue which led to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The condition agreed to that the Iran nuclear deal of July could pass with only one third of Congess supporting it- based on a presidential veto if Congress did not approve it with a two thirds majority- created the prospect of the U.S. moving ahead on a major foreign policy issue with only limited support....

LyrArc Article Gist
During 2012 and 2013 the U.S. put pressure on China and India to cut oil imports from Iran to increase the effectiveness of sanctions. As negotiations eased the sanctions, China increased oil imports in 2014 by 30% in 2014 over the prior year. China's Foreign Ministry sees a "win-win spirit" in the nuclear deal that opens up economic relations with Iran. Analysts say China has setup three new storage facilities on its eastern coast with about 45 million barrels of new capacity, which could be filled with new supplies as its growth slows and demand decreases. China's imports were about 7 million barrels a day in June 2015.

LyrArc Article Gist
It is hard to imagine that one is even writing about this, as shocking as it is- the 4 or 5 minutes between a decision to launch nuclear weapons and the end of life on this planet earth as we know it. Here Sam Nunn, a U.S. senator who was part of the negotiations for arms control and who is the leading American in this field talks about the unimaginable danger. He says the strategy from the Cold War where Russia and the U.S. put their nuclear forces in a position to be launched within minutes, 4 to 5 minutes, is outdated and needs to be changed. Hillary Clinton described the issue in the television debate. Yet this was not discussed because of the nature of the 2016 presidential election with lack of serious discussion.  And both Nunn and Clinton emphasize that once the missiles are in the air they cannot be ordered to go back. Accidental error, judgemental error, informational error in which one side thinks the other has launched a missile, a firing by mistake, are possible. In this situation Nunn says Trump is temperamentally unfit, and Clinton is fit to take on the responsibility. Yet the question this raises is as Nunn signals- is anyone but God fit to make this decision to launch nuclear weapons. Nunn says it is outdated and wrong to have only a few minutes, as such a decision cannot be made in a few hours or days, much less in 5 minutes. Nunn brings up a discussion he had in Moscow when he brought this up with Russians and president Putin. Russian president Putin told Nunn that he was fully aware of this. Putin's response was- "Senator Nunn, at some point it becomes automatic."  Nunn does not clarify what this means, or what Putin means to say. For people on the planet it is not enough to have Reagan, Gorbachev, Clinton, as Nunn mentions being responsible people for a nuclear decision. The current state of affairs is simply shocking and the lack of attention to this is also shocking. Equally dangerous is that 20 countries have weapons usable nuclear material, and sophisticated hacking of command and control processes is another danger.       ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Iranian view on the negotiations to resolve questions about Iran's nuclear program with the U.S. and European countries in Istanbul, Turkey. This view is from Ali Akbar Salehi, Foreign Minister of Iran.

LyrArc Article Gist
Critics of the nuclear agreement with Iran reached in April 2015 say the verification under a UN agency will be weak, and the "snap back" of sanctions in the event of failure may not work in the real world.

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
Differences betwee hardliners such as Ali Zafari, head of the Revolutionary Corps in Iran, and Javad Zarif, the foreign minister in the government of president Rouhani.

LyrArc Article Gist
A slight shift in American opinion favoring a deal with Iran is shown in a WSJ/NBC poll in July 2015 compared to the poll in April 2015. Support for reaching a nuclear deal with Iran remains stable at 36% in both polls, the opposed drops by 6 percentage points to 17% from 23%, and the percentage of people who say they do not know enough to formulate an opinion goes up to 46% from 40%. The intricacies of a nuclear technology deal and the sites involved lead to a high percentage of don't know enough to give an opinion. Factors hindering a deal include inspection of military sites, and Iranian intentions. Factors favoring reaching a deal now is the risk that this would mean Iran would go back into isolation and the opportunity to work with moderates might be lost. The Rouhani administration was an effort by voters to elect a government that could ease or remove sanctions to improve the economy and living conditions- its failure would lead to Iran losing an opportunity to open up to the world. The pressure from the U.S. Congress and Israel served to push for a verifiable and effective agreement to control development of nuclear technology for weapons systems. Behavioural factors involved are the very young population in Iran which has no memories about the period before the revolution in 1979- 70% of the population of 74 million are people under the age of 35. This group is eager for ties to the outside and could change Iran's outlook and policies int the future towards moderation. Risks in not reaching a deal also include the possibility of the Saudis developing nuclear technology and nuclear proliferation. Winners from a deal because of the flow of Iranian oil to world markets and a period of extended low oil prices are the U.S., Europe, China and India. Germany gains new markets to replace the growth in the Russian market after sanctions. Lifting of an arms embargo, an added risk in the last days of the talks, would be mitigated by making the lifting of that embargo very gradual....

LyrArc Article Gist
Ahmari points out that with Iran's right to enrich uranium accepted by the Obama administration the goals of the Iranian government have been achieved.

LyrArc Article Gist
Experts at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Nuclear Policy Program describe what to look for and in what time frame in the 2012 negotiations between Iran and the U.S. and other European countries in Istanbul, Turkey over Iran's nuclear program.

LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman highlights the importance of an interview with President Obama by Atlantic magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg. In this interview Obama gives a thoughtful understanding of what it means if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. The greatest danger is in nuclear proliferation. Obama brings to this an understanding of this issue from the time he focussed on this issue as a student at Columbia University, when he described the risks of nuclear proliferation in the Columbia student newspaper. There is the risk of an escalation in the development of nuclear weapons in the Middle East first, and then elsewhere. And there is the risk that nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands. The situation would create problems like that faced in North Korea or in the India-Pakistan region, but increased by many times the current dangers. The entire nuclear de-proliferation effort and the efforts to de-nuclearize weapons stockpiles that took decades to accomplish with the Soviet Union could come undone- and it would then be necessary for all countries to invest in advanced technologies for defending against nuclear weapons, setting in motion another arms race. The current situation reminds people that the issues raised by nuclear weapons development will always be with us, and require a worldwide concerted effort, at official and public level, bringing in scientists, public opinion worldwide, and educating the public in all countries of the larger danger to mankind. The issues need to be put in the right context beyond nations and politics, beyond international conflicts and competing interests or ideologies, including Israel, Iran and any other nation looking for nuclear weapons as a solution for conflicts. Shultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn after a series of meetings at the Hoover Institution called for the update of the old policies of nuclear deterrance based on mutually assured destruction used with the Soviet Union, to reflect the new threat of terrorism- in an op-ed NYT 3/7/2011. The focus of this effort is on a new Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, with all nations giving up nuclear material to an international nuclear material bank. Senator Obama strongly supported the efforts of Senators Lugar and Nunn in de-proliferation work after the collapse of the Soviet Union and joined the senators on one of their trips- Broad and Sanger, NYT, 7/5/2009. A major effort to reduce NATO, U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons is called for to lead by example, providing a framework for other means of settling regional conflicts and educating public opinion in these countries, and moving forward the negotiating of the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. In many ways public opinion will have to lead the way in all countries as governments can lag behind- the efforts of Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar and the many unnamed people in the Soviet Union who aided their efforts show the importance of this....

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ's Laurence Norman talks to Yukiya Amano, head of the UN agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has the responsibility of verification and inspection of Iran's nuclear development and facilities. Amano describes the issues raised by a 2011 report which outlined 12 sets of concerns to which Iran has to explain, a condition included in the final nuclear agreement. Iran has to respond by mid-August, IAEA then responds, and does work in Sept and Oct, and submits its report by Dec. 2015. Yamano says he has to fill in all the missing pieces in this jigsaw puzzle to get a full picture of Iran's nuclear development. Iran has denied access to military sites and Mr. Amano couldn't say if he has access to the Parchin military site. A concession that was made in the agreement is the long interval of three weeks before access to a particular site that arouses suspicions-the agreement gives Iran the right to appeal an IAEA request to visit such a site to a special commission. The U.S. and its European allies have a majority on the commission yet three weeks are allowed in which Iran could move material to some other location. For critics the question will be why such a concession was needed if Iran truly has decided not to develop nuclear weapons technologies. The U.S. president's response at a news conference on July 15, 2015, was that with the laws of physics the U.S. monitoring tools would detect nuclear activity at that site. The agreement also gives Iran an earlier than planned lifting of a ban on sales of arms and missiles and missile parts if the IAEA says Iran's nuclear activities are peaceful. Iran could conceivably wait till the ban is lifted and its economy in a much stronger position to withstand any future limited sanctions to pursue nuclear weapons development. This would have delayed development for a few years during which time the hope is that Iran has changed into a more peaceful nation pursuing economic development in its region, yet even if this is the case as as happened with India and Pakistan it could still pursue nuclear weapons development. The alternative is a status quo till a better agreement is reached with the leverage of tight economic sanctions and continuing dialogue during which time Iran continues to get closer to a nuclear weapon, or the use of force to prevent this. Iran added the arms embargo issue during the last weeks of the negotiation in June, a controversial move on Iran's part, as this may have complicated the picture with ballistic missiles technology exports to Iran approved after 8 years in the final agreement, compared to the agreement reached in April 2015 which made no mention of the lifting of the arms embargo. Iran played on the notion that if Zarif returned to Iran without an agreement hardliners including Khamanei would veto any agreement, yet this could just be the Iranian negotiating strategy. U.S. president Obama stated at the July 15, 2015 news conference that it would be hard to hold sanctions for longer. Critics might argue that China was already benefitting from the small easing of sanctions by increasing Iranian oil imports by 30% in 2014, and would have less incentive to withdraw from sanctions, as it is dependent on the U.S. and the EU, major markets for its exports and access to technologies. A WSJ/NBC poll in July shows almost half of the people polled in the U.S. saying they do not know enough to express an opinion, a steady 36% support an agreement, showing that the public has not been educated and taken along during the different steps in the largely secret negotiations....

LyrArc Article Gist
Karen Elliott House, a widely respected expert on Saudi Arabia, gives her assessment of the Saudi situation as the Obama administration completes a nuclear deal with Iran in July 2015. She says the Saudis have few options in the short term. She also points out that the unfreezing of $100 billion in assets of Iran by the end of 2015, and the lifting of economic sanctions, could exacerbate tensions in the Middle East if Iran uses the money to increase support to proxies in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has a large population of young people and high youth unemployment, increasing political risks, says Karen House.

LyrArc Article Gist
Khalid al-Falih, chairman of Saudi Aramco, says at the World Economic Forum in Davos, on Jan. 26, 2016- "If prices continue to be low, we will be able to withstand it for a long, long time." With $630 billion in foreign currency reserves the Saudis are following a long term policy of full production. Gasoline subsidies are being reduced, IPO of Saudi Aramco being discussed to raise additional capital, and other steps being taken to plan for long term oil prices. Flexibility for a change in policy is diminished with the addition of Iranian oil production to supplies following the lifting of sanctions. The events in 2015-2016 of Russian bombing campaign in Syria, and the cutoff of diplomatic relations with Iran, have worsened the standoff with Iran and Russia in the Middle East conflict. As a result it appears that the Saudis are settling down for a long term policy of full production which would keep oil prices low for the long term. India, Japan, China, the U.S. and the European Union, Turkey and other countries benefit from low oil prices when their economies need a boost in 2016-2017....

LyrArc Article Gist
In a shift from statements at earlier summits which focussed on fiscal restraint, the Camp David summit continued the "firm committment to fiscal consolidation," yet emphasized jobs and economic growth as "imperative." There is new flexibility to address needs for economic growth and no specific timetables for fiscal balance as in previous summits. Obama had many one to one encounters with the other leaders. He discussed the euro crisis with Cameron while working out on a treadmill, and watched the Champions League soccer final between Chelsea and Bayern Munich with Merkel and Cameron. Each leader of the G-8, Harper of Canada, Monti of Italy, Hollande of France, Medvedev of Russia, Cameron of Britain, Noda of Japan, Merkel of Germany, was assigned a cabin in the rustic wooded setting of Camp David's mountains. A special effort was made to see that Germany's Merkel did not feel isolated in the setting because of the growing sentiment that austerity policies pushed by Germany are not working. On Iran, Obama stated that he was "hopeful that we can resolve this issue in a peaceful fashion that recognizes their sovereignty, but also recognizes their responsibilities."...

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Getler describes the missed opportunity under President Obama for using one of America's most talented diplomats to engineer a peace agreement between the warring factions in Afghanistan- the U.S., the Pakistan army, the ISI and its support in the army, the Taliban, and the other parties such as the Haqqani faction and the Afghan government of Karzai. Holbrooke had used his experience for another President, with the same force of his larger than life personality, when he helped bring about the Dayton Accords in a similiar area of stubborn ethnic strife. Could Obama have tapped Holbrooke's skills and set aside the distractions of his personality as coming from an American with unique gifts, talent and achievement, is the question Getler asks. And is this a comment on the nature of the Obama Presidency and America's poorly invested hopes.