Tornado Alley (PROG)

[F6]

The President Announces a Historic Nuclear Deal with Iran

Published on Jul 14, 2015 by The White House [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYxRlFDqcWM4y7FfpiAN3KQ / http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse , http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse/videos ]

President Obama delivers remarks to announce a historic nuclear agreement that will verifiably prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. July 14, 2015.

*

President Obama Statement on Iran

The White House
July 14, 2015

THE PRESIDENT: Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not — a comprehensive, long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change — change that makes our country, and the world, safer and more secure. This deal is also in line with a tradition of American leadership. It’s now more than 50 years since President Kennedy stood before the American people and said, “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” He was speaking then about the need for discussions between the United States and the Soviet Union, which led to efforts to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons.

In those days, the risk was a catastrophic nuclear war between two super powers. In our time, the risk is that nuclear weapons will spread to more and more countries, particularly in the Middle East, the most volatile region in our world.

Today, because America negotiated from a position of strength and principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region. Because of this deal, the international community will be able to verify that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon.

This deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established when we achieved a framework earlier this spring. Every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off. And the inspection and transparency regime necessary to verify that objective will be put in place. Because of this deal, Iran will not produce the highly enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium that form the raw materials necessary for a nuclear bomb.

Because of this deal, Iran will remove two-thirds of its installed centrifuges — the machines necessary to produce highly enriched uranium for a bomb — and store them under constant international supervision. Iran will not use its advanced centrifuges to produce enriched uranium for the next decade. Iran will also get rid of 98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium.

To put that in perspective, Iran currently has a stockpile that could produce up to 10 nuclear weapons. Because of this deal, that stockpile will be reduced to a fraction of what would be required for a single weapon. This stockpile limitation will last for 15 years.

Because of this deal, Iran will modify the core of its reactor in Arak so that it will not produce weapons-grade plutonium. And it has agreed to ship the spent fuel from the reactor out of the country for the lifetime of the reactor. For at least the next 15 years, Iran will not build any new heavy-water reactors.

Because of this deal, we will, for the first time, be in a position to verify all of these commitments. That means this deal is not built on trust; it is built on verification. Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran’s key nuclear facilities.

Inspectors will have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain — its uranium mines and mills, its conversion facility, and its centrifuge manufacturing and storage facilities. This ensures that Iran will not be able to divert materials from known facilities to covert ones. Some of these transparency measures will be in place for 25 years.

Because of this deal, inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location. Put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary. That arrangement is permanent. And the IAEA has also reached an agreement with Iran to get access that it needs to complete its investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran’s past nuclear research.

Finally, Iran is permanently prohibited from pursuing a nuclear weapon under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which provided the basis for the international community’s efforts to apply pressure on Iran.

As Iran takes steps to implement this deal, it will receive relief from the sanctions that we put in place because of Iran’s nuclear program — both America’s own sanctions and sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council. This relief will be phased in. Iran must complete key nuclear steps before it begins to receive new sanctions relief. And over the course of the next decade, Iran must abide by the deal before additional sanctions are lifted, including five years for restrictions related to arms, and eight years for restrictions related to ballistic missiles.

All of this will be memorialized and endorsed in a new United Nations Security Council resolution. And if Iran violates the deal, all of these sanctions will snap back into place. So there’s a very clear incentive for Iran to follow through, and there are very real consequences for a violation.

That’s the deal. It has the full backing of the international community. Congress will now have an opportunity to review the details, and my administration stands ready to provide extensive briefings on how this will move forward.

As the American people and Congress review the deal, it will be important to consider the alternative. Consider what happens in a world without this deal. Without this deal, there is no scenario where the world joins us in sanctioning Iran until it completely dismantles its nuclear program. Nothing we know about the Iranian government suggests that it would simply capitulate under that kind of pressure. And the world would not support an effort to permanently sanction Iran into submission. We put sanctions in place to get a diplomatic resolution, and that is what we have done.

Without this deal, there would be no agreed-upon limitations for the Iranian nuclear program. Iran could produce, operate and test more and more centrifuges. Iran could fuel a reactor capable of producing plutonium for a bomb. And we would not have any of the inspections that allow us to detect a covert nuclear weapons program. In other words, no deal means no lasting constraints on Iran’s nuclear program.

Such a scenario would make it more likely that other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs, threatening a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world. It would also present the United States with fewer and less effective options to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

I’ve been President and Commander-in-Chief for over six years now. Time and again, I have faced decisions about whether or not to use military force. It’s the gravest decision that any President has to make. Many times, in multiple countries, I have decided to use force. And I will never hesitate to do so when it is in our national security interest. I strongly believe that our national security interest now depends upon preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon — which means that without a diplomatic resolution, either I or a future U.S. President would face a decision about whether or not to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon or whether to use our military to stop it.

Put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East. Moreover, we give nothing up by testing whether or not this problem can be solved peacefully. If, in a worst-case scenario, Iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today will be available to any U.S. President in the future. And I have no doubt that 10 or 15 years from now, the person who holds this office will be in a far stronger position with Iran further away from a weapon and with the inspections and transparency that allow us to monitor the Iranian program.

For this reason, I believe it would be irresponsible to walk away from this deal. But on such a tough issue, it is important that the American people and their representatives in Congress get a full opportunity to review the deal. After all, the details matter. And we’ve had some of the finest nuclear scientists in the world working through those details. And we’re dealing with a country — Iran — that has been a sworn adversary of the United States for over 35 years. So I welcome a robust debate in Congress on this issue, and I welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement.

But I will remind Congress that you don’t make deals like this with your friends. We negotiated arms control agreements with the Soviet Union when that nation was committed to our destruction. And those agreements ultimately made us safer.

I am confident that this deal will meet the national security interest of the United States and our allies. So I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.

We do not have to accept an inevitable spiral into conflict. And we certainly shouldn’t seek it. And precisely because the stakes are so high, this is not the time for politics or posturing. Tough talk from Washington does not solve problems. Hard-nosed diplomacy, leadership that has united the world’s major powers offers a more effective way to verify that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Now, that doesn’t mean that this deal will resolve all of our differences with Iran. We share the concerns expressed by many of our friends in the Middle East, including Israel and the Gulf States, about Iran’s support for terrorism and its use of proxies to destabilize the region. But that is precisely why we are taking this step — because an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon would be far more destabilizing and far more dangerous to our friends and to the world.

Meanwhile, we will maintain our own sanctions related to Iran’s support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program, and its human rights violations. We will continue our unprecedented efforts to strengthen Israel’s security — efforts that go beyond what any American administration has done before. And we will continue the work we began at Camp David to elevate our partnership with the Gulf States to strengthen their capabilities to counter threats from Iran or terrorist groups like ISIL.

However, I believe that we must continue to test whether or not this region, which has known so much suffering, so much bloodshed, can move in a different direction.

Time and again, I have made clear to the Iranian people that we will always be open to engagement on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect. Our differences are real and the difficult history between our nations cannot be ignored. But it is possible to change. The path of violence and rigid ideology, a foreign policy based on threats to attack your neighbors or eradicate Israel — that’s a dead end. A different path, one of tolerance and peaceful resolution of conflict, leads to more integration into the global economy, more engagement with the international community, and the ability of the Iranian people to prosper and thrive.

This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it.

We have come a long way to reach this point — decades of an Iranian nuclear program, many years of sanctions, and many months of intense negotiation. Today, I want to thank the members of Congress from both parties who helped us put in place the sanctions that have proven so effective, as well as the other countries who joined us in that effort.

I want to thank our negotiating partners — the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, as well as the European Union — for our unity in this effort, which showed that the world can do remarkable things when we share a vision of peacefully addressing conflicts. We showed what we can do when we do not split apart.

And finally, I want to thank the American negotiating team. We had a team of experts working for several weeks straight on this, including our Secretary of Energy, Ernie Moniz. And I want to particularly thank John Kerry, our Secretary of State, who began his service to this country more than four decades ago when he put on our uniform and went off to war. He’s now making this country safer through his commitment to strong, principled American diplomacy.

History shows that America must lead not just with our might, but with our principles. It shows we are stronger not when we are alone, but when we bring the world together. Today’s announcement marks one more chapter in this pursuit of a safer and more helpful and more hopeful world.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

http://time.com/3957036/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-transcript/

*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLhV3JRWKUM [with comments], [embedded at] https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2015/07/14/president-announces-historic-nuclear-deal-iran , related blog post at https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/14/email-president-obama-iran-deal


--


Benjamin Netanyahu Doesn't Need To Read The Iran Deal To Know He Hates It
07/14/2015 8:06 am EDT Updated: 07/14/2015 10:00 am EDT
WASHINGTON -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared the historic nuclear agreement reached between Iran, the U.S., and five other world powers on Tuesday to be a catastrophe.
PM of Israel
@IsraeliPM
PM: I will refer later to the details of the agreement but I'll say now: when willing to make an agreement at any cost, this is the result »
2:11 AM - 14 Jul 2015 [ https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/620883425759641600 ]
PM of Israel
@IsraeliPM
PM Netanyahu: From the initial reports we can already conclude that this agreement is a historic mistake. »
4:12 AM - 14 Jul 2015 [ https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/620883525269524480 ]
Netanyahu’s judgment of the 159-page agreement came before the public release of the text of the deal. He blamed the nuclear agreement on the willingness of the negotiators to reach a deal “at any cost,” a thinly veiled criticism of President Barack Obama, whom the Israeli premier has long sparred with on the topic of Iran’s nuclear program.
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/14/benjamin-netanyahu-iran-deal_n_7792074.html [with comments]


--


Glenn Beck’s Frightening Prediction on Iran Deal: Millions Will Cry Obama’s Name in ‘Despair and Contempt’

Jul. 14, 2015
Glenn Beck
July 14 at 8:39am
For years I have warned the world against turning a blind eye to those who run Iran. They are beyond radical Islamists. They, like ISIS are psychotic Islamists.
When I predicted the rise of the caliphate, those who had not done their homework on what was really happening in the Middle East spent their time mocking me. Once again, I warn the American people and the people of the world again. This particular strain of Islamists, like ISIS, believe they can "hasten the return of the promised one", and usher in the literal end times.
No one in their right mind would sign treaties with a Christian country that believed these things. Remember, it does NOT require you to believe it, just that you fully understand that THEY believe it.
What this president has done will be remembered as something far worse than Neville Chamberlain. It will only be a matter of time before millions cry out his name in despair and contempt. A Holocaust, perhaps bigger than the last, where millions of Christians and even Muslims who are not Muslim enough will die at the hands of the Islamic State.
Anyone who believes ?#?lovewins? must let their voice be heard. This is a nation that denies homosexuality even exists in their country and they whip or kill any that they find. This is a country that is holding Americans in prison now for political or faith crimes. This is a nation that kills those who leave Islam and stone women.
This is a sad day for the right of conscience and the freedom and safety of not only us but the entire world. It is a tragic day for our ally Israel.
?#?neveragainisnow?. It is time for good, decent and God fearing Americans stand and be counted. This deal yet again proves that our governments are not the solution to our problems. For me, my family and my team we will serve the truth and against injustice no matter the price. We will serve The Lord.
This must not stand but you must.
[ https://www.facebook.com/GlennBeck/posts/10153475912328188 ]
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/14/becks-frightening-prediction-on-iran-deal-millions-will-cry-obamas-name-in-despair-and-contempt/ [with comments], http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-gDT7N85V8 [embedded; with comments]


--


Pastor Hagee calls Iran nuke agreement 'historic, bad deal for the world'

Pastor John Hagee at the Christians United for Israel summit
July 14, 2015
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/14/pastor-hagee-iran-with-nuke-capable-reaching-nyc-is-not-in-our-best-interest/ [with comments]


--


Obama Makes His Case on Iran Nuclear Deal

TimesVideo: What Obama Says the Iran Nuclear Deal Means
By A.J. Chavar, Gabriella Demczuk, Gabe Silverman, Emily B. Hager and Abe Sater | Duration: 47:00
In an exclusive interview with Thomas L. Friedman, the president explains why he has no second thoughts about the accord with Iran.
[ http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000003800515/what-obama-says-the-iran-nuclear-deal-means.html (embedded)]

By Thomas L. Friedman
JULY 14, 2015

Only hours after the conclusion of an agreement with Iran [ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-is-reached-after-long-negotiations.html ] to lift oil and financial sanctions in return for curbs on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, President Obama is a man who evinces no second thoughts whatsoever about the deal he struck. In a 45-minute interview in the Cabinet Room, the president kept stressing one argument: Don’t judge me on whether this deal transforms Iran, ends Iran’s aggressive behavior toward some of its Arab neighbors or leads to détente between Shiites and Sunnis. Judge me on one thing: Does this deal prevent Iran from breaking out with a nuclear weapon for the next 10 years and is that a better outcome for America, Israel and our Arab allies than any other alternative on the table?

The president made clear to me that he did not agree with my assessment in a column two weeks ago [ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/opinion/thomas-friedman-a-good-bad-deal.html ] that we had not used all the leverage in our arsenal, or alliances, to prevent Iran from becoming a threshold nuclear power, by acquiring a complete independent enrichment infrastructure that has the potential to undermine the global nuclear nonproliferation regime. Personally, I want more time to study the deal, hear from the nonpartisan experts, listen to what the Iranian leaders tell their own people and hear what credible alternative strategies the critics have to offer. But the president certainly argued his case with a conviction and internal logic with which his critics and Congress will have to seriously contend.

“We are not measuring this deal by whether it is changing the regime inside of Iran,” said the president. “We’re not measuring this deal by whether we are solving every problem that can be traced back to Iran, whether we are eliminating all their nefarious activities around the globe. We are measuring this deal — and that was the original premise of this conversation, including by Prime Minister Netanyahu — Iran could not get a nuclear weapon. That was always the discussion. And what I’m going to be able to say, and I think we will be able to prove, is that this by a wide margin is the most definitive path by which Iran will not get a nuclear weapon, and we will be able to achieve that with the full cooperation of the world community and without having to engage in another war in the Middle East.”

To sell this deal to a skeptical Congress, President Obama clearly has to keep his argument tight. But I suspect his legacy on this issue will ultimately be determined by whether the deal does, in the long run, help transform Iran, defuse the U.S.-Iran Cold War and curtail the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East — not foster their proliferation. That, though, will be a long time in determining. For the near term, the deal’s merit will be judged on whether Iran implements the rollback of its nuclear enrichment capabilities to which it has agreed and whether the deeply intrusive international inspection system it has accepted can detect — and thereby deter — any cheating.

Here are some highlights from the interview: Asked about whether we failed to use all of our leverage, including a credible threat of force, the president said: “I think that criticism is misguided. Let’s see exactly what we obtained. We have cut off every pathway for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. The reason we were able to unify the world community around the most effective sanctions regime we’ve ever set up, a sanction regime that crippled the Iranian economy and ultimately brought them to the table, was because the world agreed with us, that it would be a great danger to the region, to our allies, to the world, if Iran possessed a nuclear weapon. We did not have that kind of global consensus around the notion that Iran can’t enjoy any nuclear power whatsoever. And as a member of the nonproliferation treaty, the NPT, their argument was, ‘We’re entitled to have a peaceful nuclear program.’

“And what we were able to do,” the president continued, “is to say to them, ‘Given your past behavior, given our strong suspicion and evidence that you made attempts to weaponize your nuclear program, given the destabilizing activities that you’ve engaged in in the region and support for terrorism, it’s not enough for us to trust when you say that you are only creating a peaceful nuclear program. You have to prove it to us.’ And so this whole system that we built is not based on trust; it’s based on a verifiable mechanism, whereby every pathway that they have is shut off.”

The president argued that his approach grew out of the same strategic logic that Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan used to approach the Soviet Union and China.

“You know, I have a lot of differences with Ronald Reagan, but where I completely admire him was his recognition that if you were able to verify an agreement that [was negotiated] with the evil empire that was hellbent on our destruction and was a far greater existential threat to us than Iran will ever be,” then it would be worth doing, Mr. Obama said. “I had a lot of disagreements with Richard Nixon, but he understood there was the prospect, the possibility, that China could take a different path. You test these things, and as long as we are preserving our security capacity — as long as we are not giving away our ability to respond forcefully, militarily, where necessary to protect our friends and our allies — that is a risk we have to take. It is a practical, common-sense position. It’s not naïve; it’s a recognition that if we can in fact resolve some of these differences, without resort to force, that will be a lot better for us and the people of that region.”

TimesVideo: Friedman Interviews Obama on Iran: Nixon
By A.J. Chavar, Gabriella Demczuk, Gabe Silverman and Abe Sater | Duration: 1:34
President Obama on what he learned from Richard Nixon about diplomacy.
[ http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000003800401/friedman-interviews-obama-on-iran-nixon.html (embedded)]

Asked if he believed that, given the depth of Iran’s civil society, which in 2009 launched a “green revolution” challenging clerical rule, the forces there for greater integration with the world would be empowered by this deal, the president said:

“With respect to Iran, it is a great civilization, but it also has an authoritarian theocracy in charge that is anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic, sponsors terrorism, and there are a whole host of real profound differences that we [have with] them,” said the president. “And so, initially, we have a much more modest goal here, which is to make sure Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. …

“What’s interesting, if you look at what’s happened over the last several months, is the [Iranian] opponents of this deal are the hard-liners and those who are most invested in Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, most invested in destabilizing Iran’s neighbors, most virulently anti-American and anti-Israeli. And that should tell us something, because those hard-liners are invested in the status quo in which Iran is isolated, and they are empowered. They become the only game in town. Not just militarily they call the shots, but economically they’re able to exploit the workarounds from sanctions in order to fatten themselves in a situation in which you have a different base of business people and commerce inside of Iran that may change how they think about the cost and benefits of these destabilizing activities.

“But we’re not counting on that,” the president stressed, “and that’s the thing I want to emphasize, because even over the last several weeks and today, as we announce the deal, what’s been striking to me is that, increasingly, the critics are shifting off the nuclear issue, and they’re moving into, ‘Well, even if the nuclear issue is dealt with, they’re still going to be sponsoring terrorism, and they’re going to get this sanctions relief. And so they’re going to have more money to engage in these bad activities.’ That is a possibility, and we are going to have to systematically guard against that and work with our allies — the gulf countries, Israel — to stop the work that they are doing outside of the nuclear program. But the central premise here is that if they got a nuclear weapon, that would be different, and on that score, we have achieved our objective.”

Asked if President Vladimir Putin of Russia was a help or a hindrance in concluding this deal, Mr. Obama said: “Russia was a help on this. I’ll be honest with you. I was not sure given the strong differences we are having with Russia right now around Ukraine, whether this would sustain itself. Putin and the Russian government compartmentalized on this in a way that surprised me, and we would have not achieved this agreement had it not been for Russia’s willingness to stick with us and the other P5-Plus members in insisting on a strong deal.

“I was encouraged by the fact that Mr. Putin called me a couple of weeks ago and initiated the call to talk about Syria. I think they get a sense that the Assad regime is losing a grip over greater and greater swaths of territory inside of Syria [to Sunni jihadist militias] and that the prospects for a [Sunni jihadist] takeover or rout of the Syrian regime is not imminent but becomes a greater and greater threat by the day. That offers us an opportunity to have a serious conversation with them.”

TimesVideo: Friedman Interviews Obama on Iran: Russia’s Role
By A.J. Chavar, Gabriella Demczuk, Gabe Silverman and Abe Sater | Duration: 3:08
President Obama describes Russia’s crucial role in achieving the nuclear deal.
[ http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000003800187/friedman-interviews-obama-on-iran-russias-role.html (embedded)]

My biggest concern and that of many serious critics who would actually like to see a deal work is that Iran is just not afraid of a serious U.S. military retaliation if it cheats. I asked the president, Why should the Iranians be afraid of us?

“Because we could knock out their military in speed and dispatch if we chose to,” he said, “and I think they have seen my willingness to take military action where I thought it was important for U.S. interests. Now, I actually believe that they are interested in trying to operate on parallel levels to be able to obtain the benefits of international legitimacy, commerce, reduction of sanctions while still operating through proxies in destructive ways around the region. That’s been their pattern, and I think it is very important to us to make sure that we are surfacing what they do through their proxies and calling them into account. That is part of the conversation we have to have with the gulf countries.”

With such a crowded pool of Republican presidential candidates competing over the right-wing base, it seems unlikely the president will get much support for this deal from G.O.P. members of Congress.

”I think it’s doubtful that we get a lot of current Republican elected officials supporting this deal,” Mr. Obama said. “I think there’s a certain party line that has to be toed, within their primaries and among many sitting members of Congress. But that’s not across the board. It’ll be interesting to see what somebody like a Rand Paul has to say about this. But I think that if I were succeeded by a Republican president — and I’ll be doing everything that I can to prevent that from happening — but if I were, that Republican president would be in a much stronger position than I was when I came into office, in terms of constraining Iran’s nuclear program.

“He will be in a position to know that 98 percent of their nuclear material has been shipped out. He would know that the majority of the centrifuges had been removed. He would know that there is no heavy reactor there. He’d know that the international community had signed on to this. He would know everything that we’ve learned from the inspection regime. And he’d still be in possession of the entire arsenal of our armed forces, and our diplomatic and intelligence services, to deal with the possibility that Iran was cheating. ... They’re not going to admit that now. And that’s entire hypothetical, because I feel good about having a Democratic successor. But I think that this builds on bipartisan ideas, bipartisan efforts. We could not have succeeded without the strong support of Congress on a bipartisan basis to impose the sanctions we did on Iran. They deserve enormous credit for that. And as we implement this I think it will prove to be not just good for us but good for the world.”

TimesVideo: Friedman Interviews Obama on Iran: 2016
By Abe Sater, Gabriella Demczuk, Gabe Silverman and A.J. Chavar | Duration: 2:48
President Obama on his doubts about Republican support for the deal and what it means for the next president.
[ http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000003800402/friedman-interviews-obama-on-iran-2016.html (embedded)]

The president spoke to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel by phone just before the start of the interview. Mr. Obama did not try to sugar coat their differences, but he hinted that his administration has in the works some significant strategic upgrades for both Israel and America’s gulf allies.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to discuss specific details about security agreements or work that we may be doing,” the president told me. “What I can tell you is that that process is in train. Now, with respect to the Israelis, I think it’s fair to say that under my administration, we’ve done more to facilitate Israeli capabilities. And I’ve also said that I’m prepared to go further than any other administration’s gone before in terms of providing them additional security assurances from the United States. The thing I want to emphasize is that people’s concerns here are legitimate. Hezbollah has tens of thousands of missiles that are pointed toward Israel. They are becoming more sophisticated. The interdiction of those weapon flows has not been as successful as it needs to be. There are legitimate concerns on the part of the gulf countries about Iran trying to stir up and prompt destabilizing events inside their countries. So they’re not just being paranoid. Iran is acting in an unconstructive way, in a dangerous way in these circumstances. What I’ve simply said is that we have to keep our eye on the ball here, which is that Iran with a nuclear weapon will do more damage, and we will be in a much worse position to prevent it.”

The president argues that preventing Iran from having any enrichment capacity is simply impossible. The key, he insists, is how well you curb it and verify its limitations: “Now, Prime Minister Netanyahu would prefer, and many of the critics would prefer, that they don’t even have any nuclear capacity. But really, what that involves is eliminating the presence of knowledge inside of Iran. Nuclear technology is not that complicated today, and so the notion that the yardstick for success was now whether they ever had the capacity possibly to obtain nuclear weapons — that can’t be the yardstick. The question is, Do we have the kind of inspection regime and safeguards and international consensus whereby it’s not worth it for them to do it? We have accomplished that.”

The president said he knows he is going to have a fight on his hands with Mr. Netanyahu and those in Congress who share the prime minister’s views, but he seemed confident that in the end he would prevail.

Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Obama said, “perhaps thinks he can further influence the congressional debate, and I’m confident we’re going to be able to uphold this deal and implement it without Congress preventing that. But after that’s done, if that’s what he thinks is appropriate, then I will sit down, as we have consistently throughout my administration, and then ask some very practical questions: How do we prevent Hezbollah from acquiring more sophisticated weapons? How do we build on the success of Iron Dome, which the United States worked with Israel to develop and has saved Israeli lives? In the same way I’m having conversation with the gulf countries about how do we have a more effective interdiction policy, how do we build more effective governance structures and military structures in Sunni areas that have essentially become a void that [the Islamic State] has filled or that, in some cases, Iranian activities can exploit?”

The president added: “And what I’ve also tried to explain to people, including Prime Minister Netenyahu, is that in the absence of a deal, our ability to sustain these sanctions was not in the cards. Keep in mind it’s not just Iran that paid a price for sanctions. China, Japan, South Korea, India — pretty much any oil importer around the world that had previously import arrangements from Iran — found themselves in a situation where this was costing them billions of dollars to sustain these sanctions.

“In some ways, the United States paid the lowest price for maintenance of sanctions, because we didn’t do business with Iran in the first place. They made a significant sacrifice. The reason they did was because my administration, our diplomats, and oftentimes me personally, were able to persuade them that the only way to resolve this nuclear problem was to make these sanctions bite. And if they saw us walking away from what technical experts believe is a legitimate mechanism to ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon — if they saw that our diplomatic efforts were not sincere, or were trying to encompass not just the nuclear program, but every policy disagreement that we might have with Iran, then frankly, those sanctions would start falling apart very rapidly. And so, maybe Iran wouldn’t get $150 billion, but they’d get a big chunk of that, because we would not be able to sustain that support.”

It strikes me that the one party that we have heard the least from, but in the end could count the most, is the Iranian people and how they ultimately react to this opening of Iran to the world as a result of this deal. What would Mr. Obama say to them?

“What I’d say to them is this offers a historic opportunity,” the president said. “Their economy has been cratering as a consequence of the sanctions. They have the ability now to take some decisive steps to move toward a more constructive relationship with the world community. … They need to seize that opportunity, their leaders need to seize that opportunity. And the truth of the matter is that Iran will be and should be a regional power. They are a big country and a sophisticated country in the region. They don’t need to invite the hostility and the opposition of their neighbors by their behavior. It’s not necessary for them to be great to denigrate Israel or threaten Israel or engage in Holocaust denial or anti-Semitic activity. Now that’s what I would say to the Iranian people. Whether the Iranian people have sufficient influence to fundamentally shift how their leaders think about these issues, time will tell.”

Maybe, I suggested, it was time for the U.S. to launch a new peace process — between Sunni Arab Saudi Arabia and Shiite Persian Iran. After all, without some lowering of tensions between the two any empowerment of Iran is only going to increase tensions between these two historic rivals, whose internecine war is tearing the region apart.

“I have long believed that we have to encourage at least a lessening of the hostilities that currently exist between Shia and Sunni factions in the region,” Mr. Obama responded. “Now, I think when I talked to my gulf allies when we were at Camp David, they’d be very clear in saying that ‘We view ourselves as Arab nations, not Sunni and Shia,’ and I think they mean that sincerely. And many of them would say that our Shia citizens are full citizens and are treated fairly, but what I think is undeniable is that the sectarian forces that have been unleashed are adding to the viciousness and destructiveness of what’s happening in a place like Syria, what’s happening in a place like Yemen, what’s happening certainly in Iraq. And that our best chance at at least reducing the scope of those conflicts is for the Saudis and other Sunni states or Arab states to be at least in a practical conversation with Iran that says, `The conflict we are fanning right now could engulf us all in flames.’

“Nobody has an interest in seeing [the Islamic State] control huge swaths of territory between Damascus and Baghdad. That’s not good for Iran. It makes it very difficult for them to sustain a buffer, which has always been a significant motivator for them since the Iraq-Iran War. It’s not good for the Saudis. It leaves them vulnerable in all sorts of ways, and the truth of the matter is that, most importantly, it’s not good for the people there. You watch the news reports preceding the Arab Spring, but certainly since the Arab Spring started to turn into more an Arab Winter, and you weep for the children of this region, not just the ones who are being displaced in Syria, not just the ones who are currently suffering from humanitarian situations in Yemen, but just the ordinary Iranian youth or Saudi youth or Kuwaiti youth who are asking themselves, `Why is it that we don’t have the same prospects that some kid in Finland, Singapore, China, Indonesia, the United States? Why aren’t we seeing that same possibility, that same sense of hopefulness?’ And I think that’s what the leaders have to really focus on.”

The president also said: “America has to listen to our Sunni Arab allies, but also not fall into the trap of letting them blame every problem on Iran. The citizens of more than a few Arab Gulf states have been big contributors to Sunni Jihadist movements that have been equally destabilizing.

“In some cases, for example, the Houthis in Yemen, I think Iranian involvement has been initially overstated,” said Mr. Obama. “When we see our intelligence, we don’t get a sense that Iran was strategically thinking, ‘Let’s march the Houthis into Sana.’ It was more of an indicator of the weakness of the government in Yemen. They now seek to exploit it. Oftentimes, they’re opportunistic. That’s part of the reason why my argument has been to my allies in the region, let’s stop giving Iran opportunities for mischief. Strengthen your own societies. Be inclusive. Make sure that your Shia populations don’t feel as if they’re being left out. Think about the economic growth. Make sure that we’ve got better military capacity for things like interdiction. The more we do those things, that’s the level of deterrence that’s necessary because it is highly unlikely that you are going to see Iran launch a direct attack, state to state, against any of our allies in the region. They know that that would give us the rationale to go in full-bore, and as I said, we could knock out most of their military capacity pretty quickly.”

I noted to Mr. Obama that one of the issues most troubling nonpartisan critics of the deal is what happens if we suspect that Iran is operating a covert nuclear program at a military base not covered by this deal. There is a process in place that allows for inspections, but it could take over three weeks for international inspectors to get access after raising a complaint. Couldn’t Iran use that time to just scrub clean any signs of cheating?

TimesVideo: Friedman Interviews Obama: The Strengths of the Iran Deal
By A.J. Chavar | Duration: 3:39
In a conversation with Thomas L. Friedman, President Obama explains what he thinks the United States gained from the nuclear deal with Iran.
[ http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000003799837/friedman-interviews-obama-on-iran-deal.html (embedded)]

“Yeah, but here’s where having somebody like [Energy Secretary] Ernie Moniz is pretty helpful, because he assured us that if, in fact, we have good mechanisms to scoop up and sample earth, this stuff has got a long half-life. My high school physics probably isn’t equal to Ernie Moniz’s, but I do remember it’s not that easy to suddenly just hide potentially radioactive material that’s been developed. The same is true, by the way, for the possibility that Iran might import materials that could be used for nuclear programs but might have a dual use. We’ve set up unprecedented mechanisms to be able to look at each one of those imports and say, ‘You got to show us how this is being used to ensure that it’s not being converted.’ ”

The president added: “If you hear a critic say, `Well, this inspection regime is not 100 percent foolproof,’ I guess theoretically, nothing is 100 percent foolproof. But if the standard is what is the best, most effective, most rigorous mechanism whereby it is very, very, very difficult for Iran to cheat, then this is the mechanism, and it goes far beyond anything that was done, for example, in North Korea.”

In conclusion, I noted to Mr. Obama that he was now the U.S. president who’d had the most contact with Iran’s leadership since the 1979 Islamic Revolution there and the onset of the U.S.-Iran Cold War. What had he learned?

“Well, I haven’t learned yet to trust the Iranian leadership,” said Mr. Obama, “although I think that what John Kerry learned in his interactions with Foreign Minister Zarif — and that then traces back to President Rouhani — is that when you nail down an agreement, they do seem to follow it to the letter, perhaps thinking there may be a loophole here or there, which is why you have to button this stuff down. But the notion that once you put something down on paper that somehow they’re just going to ignore it and try to pocket what they’ve gained, that’s not what we saw during the last two years of the interim agreement. There is, I think, restraints that they feel when they have an agreement and they have a document, that they need to abide by it. So I think we’ve learned that.

“I think that we’ve also learned that there are different voices and different forces inside of Iran, and that those may not be consistent with our values. The so-called moderate in Iran is not going to be suddenly somebody who we feel reflects universal issues like human rights, but there are better or worse approaches that Iran can take relative to our interests and the interests of our allies, and we should see where we can encourage that better approach.

“And then I think the last thing that — this is maybe not something I’ve learned but has been confirmed — even with your enemies, even with your adversaries, I do think that you have to have the capacity to put yourself occasionally in their shoes, and if you look at Iranian history, the fact is that we had some involvement with overthrowing a democratically elected regime in Iran. We have had in the past supported Saddam Hussein when we know he used chemical weapons in the war between Iran and Iraq, and so, as a consequence, they have their own security concerns, their own narrative. It may not be one we agree with. It in no way rationalizes the kinds of sponsorship from terrorism or destabilizing activities that they engage in, but I think that when we are able to see their country and their culture in specific terms, historical terms, as opposed to just applying a broad brush, that’s when you have the possibility at least of some movement.

“In the same way that when Ronald Reagan and others negotiated arms agreement with the Soviet Union, you had to recognize, yes, this is an evil, terrible system, but within it are people with specific historic ideas and memories, and we have to be able to understand those things and potentially try to make some connection. And the same was true with respect to Nixon and Kissinger going to China, which ended up being a very important strategic benefit to the United States.”

© 2015 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/opinion/thomas-friedman-obama-makes-his-case-on-iran-nuclear-deal.html [with comments] [some or all of the embedded videos, the complete interview and the excerpts, should or at least may show up at https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNewYorkTimes/videos in the relative near future]


--


Historic nuclear deal puts US, Iran on path to peace

The Rachel Maddow Show
7/14/15

Joe Cirincione, president of The Ploughshares Fund, talks with Rachel Maddow about the chances for success of the newly announced nuclear deal with Iran and how diplomacy could take the US and Iran out of a war posture for the first time in a generation. Duration: 19:00

©2015 NBCNews.com

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/nuclear-deal-puts-us-iran-on-path-to-peace-484405827789 [with comments] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-july-14-2015-trms (no comments yet)] [the above YouTube of the segment at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCfWrU7vGGs (with comments), another at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN0Feq_NK3s (no comments yet)]


--


High global political stakes require Iran deal to succeed

The Rachel Maddow Show
7/14/15

Vali Nasr, dean of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, talks with Rachel Maddow about politics within the U.S. and also within Iran, and the pressures of global circumstances that will determine whether the Iran nuclear deal succeeds. Duration: 9:01

©2015 NBCNews.com

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/high-stakes-require-iran-deal-to-succeed-484408388000 [with comments] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-july-14-2015-trms (no comments yet)] [the above YouTube of the segment at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DqzLRNuJh0 (with comment)]


--


Cheney on Iran Deal: Closest We've Been to Nuclear War Since WWII

Jul 14, 2015 // 10:20pm
As seen on Hannity [original video, embedded http://video.foxnews.com/v/4355144706001/exclusive-dick-cheney-warns-against-iran-nuke-deal-/?playlist_id=930909813001#sp=show-clips , also embedded and with transcript http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/07/14/exclusive-dick-cheney-warns-against-iran-nuke-deal-on-hannity/ ]

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said on "Hannity" tonight that the Iranian nuclear agreement brings the world closer to the actual use of nuclear weapons.

Cheney said that President Obama's claim that the deal has stopped the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a lie.

He explained that Iran is now on the road to getting a nuke. Whether that takes months or years, it will motivate other countries in the region to get their own nuclear weapons, setting off a potentially disastrous arms race.

"That will, in fact, put us closer to the actual use of nuclear weapons than we've been at any time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II," Cheney said.

He added that President Obama's actions will lead to strained relationships with U.S. allies in the Middle East, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.

"He's not a man of his word. He's not a man who can be trusted," Cheney said. "And I think our allies who find their very survival at question here, there isn't any way they're going to rely upon Barack Obama for safety and security. They're going to get their own."

Watch Cheney's interview in the "Hannity" video above.

More Reaction to the Iran Nuclear Agreement:

Giuliani: 'We've Made a Deal With a Homicidal Maniac'
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/14/rudy-giuliani-iran-nuclear-deal-weve-made-deal-homicidal-maniac

Trump Blasts Iran Nuclear Deal: 'We Know They're Going to Cheat'
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/14/donald-trump-blasts-iran-nuclear-deal-we-know-theyre-going-cheat

Huckabee Bashes Nuke Deal: 'I Don't Trust Obama or Iran'
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/14/huckabee-bashes-nuclear-deal-i-dont-trust-obama-or-iran

'A Staggeringly Bad Deal': 2016 GOP Field Reacts to Obama's Nuclear Deal With Iran
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/14/quotes-2016-gop-candidates-react-obamas-nuclear-deal-iran

Walker to Hannity: 'I Would Terminate Bad Iran Deal on Day One'
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/14/scott-walker-iran-nuclear-deal-i-would-terminate-agreement-day-one

©2015 FOX News Network, LLC

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/14/dick-cheney-hannity-iran-nuke-deal-brings-world-closer-nuclear-war [with comments] [the above YouTube of the segment, embedded where the original video segment is embedded in the item, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiSj_F3LWSU (with comments), others at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pyLxgiYRnM (no comments yet), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF4h4F8XAys (with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfQyO6BD9s4 (with comments)]


--


Scott Walker makes a clown of himself: Foreign policy-challenged candidate disastrously flubs Iran

Wisconsin governor promises to alienate all our allies, then convince them to help us "cripple" Iran somehow

Jul 14, 2015
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/14/scott_walker_makes_a_clown_of_himself_foreign_policy_challenged_candidate_disastrously_flubs_iran/ [with comments], http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpThBf5jrY0 [from Walker's post-announcement activities on July 13, 2015; embedded; no comments yet]


--


Is Iran Deal The Beginning of World War III?

Published on Jul 15, 2015 by The Alex Jones Channel [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg / http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel , http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel/videos ]

Sanctions have been in place against Iran since 1979. They’ve been raised in 1995 & again in 2006. Are sanctions preventing Iran from moving ahead with a nuclear weapon? Who are the Islamic players in the Middle East and why are we allied with Saudi Arabia?

Dick Cheney descends further into self-parody, hints Iran deal will trigger nuclear war

Ex-veep: Deal leaves us closer to "use of nuclear weapons than we’ve been at any time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki"
Jul 15, 2015
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/15/dick_cheney_descends_further_into_self_parody_hints_iran_deal_will_trigger_nuclear_war/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEWnlY7oGZM [with comments]


--


Albright: Iran deal is 'good and important'

Published on Jul 15, 2015 by CNN [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxgpKhp3XjWCV1MzTnF0sKg , http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxgpKhp3XjWCV1MzTnF0sKg/videos ]

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright addresses the negative push back to the Iran nuclear deal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa1Byb1RMBE [no comments yet]


--


Albright: Deal about verifying, not about trust

Morning Joe
7/15/15

Fmr. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright joins Morning Joe to discuss the details of the nuclear deal with Iran and the Israeli response. Duration: 6:43

©2015 NBCNews.com

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/albright--deal-about-verifying--not-about-trust-484547651513 [with comments]


--


Donald Trump: I employ hundreds of Mexicans

Morning Joe
7/15/15

2016 GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump joins Morning Joe to discuss everything from campaigning and Iran to immigration and 'incompetent' American leadership. Duration: 19:47

©2015 NBCNews.com

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/donald-trump--i-employ-hundreds-of-mexicans-484555843850 [with comments] [the above YouTube of the segment at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaS2xqOcL5o (no comments yet), others at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prAX1ytiQ3Y (with comments), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuFq20FmeEI (with comments), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulYoG8EEfDk (with comments), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_p-J145WxQ (no comments yet)]


--


Brzezinski: I am impressed, encouraged by deal

Morning Joe
7/15/15

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Ignatius join Morning Joe to discuss the details of the Iranian nuclear deal. Duration: 9:24

After a well-crafted deal, the question is: Will Iran behave?
July 14, 2015
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-a-well-crafted-deal-the-question-is-will-iran-behave/2015/07/14/b8e301cc-2a6b-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

©2015 NBCNews.com

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/brzezinski--i-am-impressed--encouraged-by-deal-484586051738 [with comments]


--


Israeli amb.: This deal doesn't stop Iran

Morning Joe
7/15/15

Israeli Amb. to the U.S., Ron Dermer, joins Morning Joe to discuss the Iranian nuclear deal and why, as he says, it gives Iran two paths to a bomb. Duration: 4:57

©2015 NBCNews.com

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/israeli-amb.--this-deal-doesnt-stop-iran-484603971566 [with comments]


--


British ambassador to US weighs in on deal

Morning Joe
7/15/15

British Amb. to U.S., Peter Westmacott, joins Morning Joe to discuss the Iranian nuclear deal and why Britain belives it makes the world a safer place. Duration: 5:40

©2015 NBCNews.com

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/british-ambassador-to-us-weighs-in-on-deal-484616259687 [with comments]


--


The President Holds a Press Conference on the Nuclear Deal with Iran

Published on Jul 15, 2015 by The White House

President Obama answered questions from the press corps on the historic nuclear agreement with Iran in the East Room of the White House. July 15, 2015.

*

Press Conference by the President

East Room
July 15, 2015

1:25 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Yesterday was a historic day. The comprehensive, long-term deal that we achieved with our allies and partners to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon represents a powerful display of American leadership and diplomacy. It shows what we can accomplish when we lead from a position of strength and a position of principle, when we unite the international community around a shared vision, and we resolve to solve problems peacefully.

As I said yesterday, it’s important for the American people and Congress to get a full opportunity to review this deal. That process is now underway. I’ve already reached out to leaders in Congress on both sides of the aisle. My national security team has begun offering extensive briefings. I expect the debate to be robust -- and that’s how it should be. This is an important issue. Our national security policies are stronger and more effective when they are subject to the scrutiny and transparency that democracy demands.

And as I said yesterday, the details of this deal matter very much. That’s why our team worked so hard for so long to get the details right. At the same time, as this debate unfolds, I hope we don’t lose sight of the larger picture -- the opportunity that this agreement represents. As we go forward, it’s important for everybody to remember the alternative and the fundamental choice that this moment represents.

With this deal, we cut off every single one of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear program -- a nuclear weapons program, and Iran’s nuclear program will be under severe limits for many years. Without a deal, those pathways remain open; there would be no limits on Iran’s nuclear program, and Iran could move closer to a nuclear bomb.

With this deal, we gain unprecedented, around-the-clock monitoring of Iran’s key nuclear facilities and the most comprehensive and intrusive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated. Without a deal, those inspections go away, and we lose the ability to closely monitor Iran’s program and detect any covert nuclear weapons program.

With this deal, if Iran violates its commitments, there will be real consequences. Nuclear-related sanctions that have helped to cripple the Iranian economy will snap back into place. Without a deal, the international sanctions regime will unravel, with little ability to re-impose them.

With this deal, we have the possibility of peacefully resolving a major threat to regional and international security. Without a deal, we risk even more war in the Middle East, and other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs, threatening a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world.

As I said yesterday, even with this deal, we will continue to have profound differences with Iran -- its support for terrorism and its use of proxies to destabilize parts of the Middle East. Therefore, the multilateral arms embargo on Iran will remain in place for an additional five years, and restrictions on ballistic missile technology will remain for eight years. In addition, the United States will maintain our own sanctions related to Iran’s support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program, and its human rights violations. And we’ll continue our unprecedented security cooperation with Israel and continue to deepen our partnerships with the Gulf States.

But the bottom line is this: This nuclear deal meets the national security interests of the United States and our allies. It prevents the most serious threat -- Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would only make the other problems that Iran may cause even worse. That’s why this deal makes our country, and the world, safer and more secure. It’s why the alternative -- no limits on Iran’s nuclear program, no inspections, an Iran that’s closer to a nuclear weapon, the risk of a regional nuclear arms race and a greater risk of war -- all that would endanger our security. That’s the choice that we face. If we don’t choose wisely, I believe future generations will judge us harshly for letting this moment slip away.

And no one suggests that this deal resolves all the threats that Iran poses to its neighbors or the world. Moreover, realizing the promise of this deal will require many years of implementation and hard work. It will require vigilance and execution. But this deal is our best means of assuring that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. And, from the start, that has been my number-one priority, our number-one priority. We’ve got a historic chance to pursue a safer and more secure world -- an opportunity that may not come again in our lifetimes. As President and as Commander-in-Chief, I am determined to seize that opportunity.

So with that, I’m going to take some questions. And let me see who I’m starting off with. Here you go. I got it. (Laughter.)

Andrew Beatty, AFP.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Yesterday, you said the deal offered a chance at a new direction in relations with Iran. What steps will you take to enable a more moderate Iran? And does this deal allow you to more forcefully counter Iran’s destabilizing actions in the region quite aside from the nuclear question? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Andrew, if you don’t mind, just because I suspect that there’s going to be a common set of questions that are touched on -- I promise I will get to your question, but I want to start off just by stepping back and reminding folks of what is at stake here. And I already did in my opening statement, but I just want to reiterate it because I’ve heard already some of the objections to the deal.

The starting premise of our strategy with respect to Iran has been that it would be a grave threat to the United States and to our allies if they obtained a nuclear weapon. And so everything that we’ve done over the last six and a half years has been designed to make sure that we address that number-one priority. That’s what the sanctions regime was all about. That’s how we were able to mobilize the international community, including some folks that we are not particularly close to, to abide by these sanctions. That’s how these crippling sanctions came about, was because we were able to gain global consensus that Iran having a nuclear weapon would be a problem for everybody.

That’s the reason that Iran’s accounts got frozen and they were not able to get money for the oil sales that they’ve made. That’s the reason that they had problems operating with respect to international commerce -- because we built that international consensus around this very specific, narrow, but profound issue -- the possibility of Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

And, by the way, that was not simply my priority. If you look back at all the debates that have taken place over the last five, six years, this has been a Democratic priority, this has been a Republican priority, this has been Prime Minister Netanyahu’s priority. It’s been our Gulf allies’ priority -- is making sure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.

The deal negotiated by John Kerry, Wendy Sherman, Ernie Moniz, our allies, our partners, the P5+1 achieves that goal. It achieves our top priority -- making sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. But we have always recognized that even if Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon, Iran still poses challenges to our interests and our values, both in the region and around the world.

So when this deal gets implemented, we know that we will have dismantled the immediate concerns around Iran’s nuclear program. We will have brought their stockpiles down to 98 percent. We will have significantly reduced the number of centrifuges that they operate. We will have installed an unprecedented inspections regime, and that will remain in place not just for 10 years but, for example, on the stockpiles, will continue to 15 years.

Iran will have pledged to the international community that it will not develop a nuclear weapon and now will be subject to an Additional Protocol, a more vigorous inspection and monitoring regime that lasts in perpetuity. We will have disabled a facility like Arak, the Arak facility, from allowing Iran to develop plutonium that could be used for a bomb. We will have greatly reduced the stockpile of uranium that’s enriched. And we will have put in place inspections along the entire supply chain so that if uranium was diverted into a covert program we would catch it.

So I can say with confidence but, more importantly, nuclear experts can say with confidence that Iran will not be in a position to develop a nuclear bomb. We will have met our number-one priority.

Now, we’ll still have problems with Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism; its funding of proxies like Hezbollah that threaten Israel and threaten the region; the destabilizing activities that they're engaging in, including in places like Yemen. And my hope is that building on this deal we can continue to have conversations with Iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region, to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative, to operate the way we expect nations in the international community to behave. But we're not counting on it. So this deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior. It’s not contingent on Iran suddenly operating like a liberal democracy.

It solves one particular problem, which is making sure they don't have a bomb. And the point I’ve repeatedly made -- and is, I believe, hard to dispute -- is that it will be a lot easier for us to check Iran’s nefarious activities, to push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interests or our allies’ interests, if they don't have a bomb.

And so will they change their behavior? Will we seek to gain more cooperation from them in resolving issues like Syria, or what’s happening in Iraq, to stop encouraging Houthis in Yemen? We’ll continue to engage with them. Although, keep in mind that unlike the Cuba situation, we're not normalizing diplomatic relations here. So the contacts will continue to be limited. But will we try to encourage them to take a more constructive path? Of course. But we're not betting on it.

And in fact, having resolved the nuclear issue, we will be in a stronger position to work with Israel, work with the Gulf countries, work with our other partners, work with the Europeans to bring additional pressure to bear on Iran around those issues that remain of concern.

But the argument that I’ve been already hearing -- and this was foreshadowed even before the deal was announced -- that because this deal does not solve all those other problems, that that's an argument for rejecting this deal, defies logic. It makes no sense. And it loses sight of what was our original number-one priority, which is making sure that they don't have a bomb.

Jon Karl.

Q Mr. President, does it give you any pause to see this deal praised by Syrian dictator Assad as a “great victory for Iran,” or praised by those in Tehran who still shout “death to America,” and yet our closest ally in the Middle East calls it “a mistake of historic proportions”? And here in Congress, it looks like a large majority will vote to reject this deal. I know you can veto that rejection, but do you have any concerns about seeing a majority of the people’s representatives in Congress saying that this is a bad deal?

And if I can just ask you quick political question, a very quick one.

THE PRESIDENT: Jon, I think --

Q Donald --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me answer the question that you asked. It does not give me pause that Mr. Assad or others in Tehran may be trying to spin the deal in a way that they think is favorable to what their constituencies want to hear. That’s what politicians do. And that’s been the case throughout. I mean, you’ll recall that during the course of these negotiations over the last couple of months every time the Supreme Leader or somebody tweeted something out, for some reason we all bought into the notion, well, the Obama administration must be giving this or capitulating to that. Well, now we have a document so you can see what the deal is.

We don’t have to speculate, we don’t have to engage in spin, you can just read what it says and what is required. And nobody has disputed that as a consequence of this agreement Iran has to drastically reduce its stockpiles of uranium, is cut off from plutonium; the Fordow facility that is underground is converted; that we have an unprecedented inspections regime; that we have snap-back provisions if they cheat. The facts are the facts. And I'm not concerned about what others say about it.

Now, with respect to Congress, my hope -- I won’t prejudge this -- my hope is, is that everyone in Congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts -- not on politics, not on posturing, not on the fact that this is a deal I bring to Congress as opposed to a Republican President, not based on lobbying, but based on what’s in the national interest of the United States of America.

And I think that if Congress does that, then, in fact, based on the facts, the majority of Congress should approve of this deal. But we live in Washington and politics do intrude. And as I said in an interview yesterday, I am not betting on the Republican Party rallying behind this agreement. I do expect the debate to be based on facts and not speculation or misinformation. And that I welcome -- in part because, look, there are legitimate real concerns here. We’ve already talked about it. We have huge differences with Iran. Israel has legitimate concerns about its security relative to Iran. You have a large country with a significant military that has proclaimed that Israel shouldn’t exist, that has denied the Holocaust, that has financed Hezbollah, and as a consequence there are missiles that are pointed towards Tel Aviv.

And so I think there are very good reasons why Israelis are nervous about Iran’s position in the world generally. And I’ve said this to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I’ve said it directly to the Israeli people. But what I’ve also said is that all those threats are compounded if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. And for all the objections of Prime Minister Netanyahu, or, for that matter, some of the Republican leadership that’s already spoken, none of them have presented to me, or the American people, a better alternative.

I'm hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about “this is a bad deal” -- “this is a historically bad deal,” “this will threaten Israel and threaten the world and threaten the United States.” I mean, there’s been a lot of that.

What I haven’t heard is, what is your preferred alternative? If 99 percent of the world community and the majority of nuclear experts look at this thing and they say, this will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, and you are arguing either that it does not, or that even if it does it’s temporary, or that because they’re going to get a windfall of their accounts being unfrozen that they’ll cause more problems, then you should have some alternative to present. And I haven’t heard that. And the reason is because there really are only two alternatives here: Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation, or it’s resolved through force, through war. Those are the options.

Now, you’ll hear some critics say, well, we could have negotiated a better deal. Okay. What does that mean? I think the suggestion among a lot of the critics has been that a better deal, an acceptable deal would be one in which Iran has no nuclear capacity at all, peaceful or otherwise. The problem with that position is that there is nobody who thinks that Iran would or could ever accept that, and the international community does not take the view that Iran can’t have a peaceful nuclear program. They agree with us that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.

And so we don’t have diplomatic leverage to eliminate every vestige of a peaceful nuclear program in Iran. What we do have the leverage to do is to make sure they don’t have a weapon. That’s exactly what we’ve done.

So to go back to Congress, I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one, to read the agreement before they comment on it; number two, to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they’re right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues, is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative.

And if the alternative is that we should bring Iran to heel through military force, then those critics should say so. And that will be an honest debate.

All right.

Q Mr. President, if I can --

THE PRESIDENT: No, no --

Q Prime Minister Netanyahu said that you have a situation where Iran can delay 24 days before giving access to military facilities --

THE PRESIDENT: I’m happy to -- that’s a good example. So let’s take the issue of 24 days. This has been I think swirling today, the notion that this is insufficient in terms of inspections.

Now, keep in mind, first of all, that we’ll have 24/7 inspections of declared nuclear facilities -- Fordow, Natanz, Arak, their uranium mines; facilities that are known to produce centrifuges, parts. That entire infrastructure that we know about we will have sophisticated, 24/7 monitoring of those facilities.

So then the issue is, what if they try to develop a covert program? Now, one of the advantages of having inspections across the entire production chain is that it makes it very difficult to set up a covert program. There are only so many uranium mines in Iran. And if, in fact, we’re counting the amount of uranium that’s being mined and suddenly some is missing on the back end, they got some explaining to do.

So we’re able to track what’s happening along the existing facilities to make sure that there is not diversion into a covert program. But let’s say that Iran is so determined that it now wants to operate covertly. The IAEA, the international organization charged with implementing the non-proliferation treaty and monitoring nuclear activities in countries around the world -- the IAEA will have the ability to say, that undeclared site we’re concerned about, we see something suspicious. And they will be able to say to Iran, we want to go inspect that.

Now, if Iran objects, we can override it. In the agreement, we’ve set it up so we can override Iran’s objection. And we don’t need Russia or China in order for us to get that override. And if they continue to object, we’re in a position to snap back sanctions and declare that Iran is in violation and is cheating.

As for the fact that it may take 24 days to finally get access to the site, the nature of nuclear programs and facilities is such, this is not something you hide in a closet. This is not something you put on a dolly and kind of wheel off somewhere. And, by the way, if we identify an undeclared site that we’re suspicious about, we’re going to be keeping eyes on it. So we’re going to be monitoring what the activity is, and that’s going to be something that will be evidence if we think that some funny business was going on there that we can then present to the international community.

So we’ll be monitoring that that entire time. And, by the way, if there is nuclear material on that site, high school physics will remind us that that leaves a trace. And so we’ll know that, in fact, there was a violation of the agreement.

So the point is, Jonathan, that this is the most vigorous inspection and verification regime by far that has ever been negotiated. Is it possible that Iran decides to try to cheat despite having this entire inspection verification mechanism? It’s possible. But if it does, first of all, we’ve built in a one-year breakout time, which gives us a year to respond forcefully. And we’ve built in a snap-back provision so we don't have to go through lengthy negotiations at the U.N. to put the sanctions right back in place.

And so really the only argument you can make against the verification and inspection mechanism that we’ve put forward is that Iran is so intent on obtaining a nuclear weapon that no inspection regime and no verification mechanism would be sufficient because they’d find some way to get around it because they're untrustworthy.

And if that's your view, then we go back to the choice that you have to make earlier. That means, presumably, that you can't negotiate. And what you're really saying is, is that you've got to apply military force to guarantee that they don't have a nuclear program. And if somebody wants to make that debate -- whether it’s the Republican leadership, or Prime Minister Netanyahu, or the Israeli Ambassador or others, they're free to make it. But it’s not persuasive.

Carol Lee.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I want to ask you about the arms and ballistic missile embargo. Why did you decide -- agree to lift those even with the five- and eight-year durations? It’s obviously emerging as a sticking point on the Hill. And are you concerned that arms to Iran will go to Hezbollah or Hamas? And is there anything that you or a future President can do to stop that?

And if you don't mind, I wanted to see if you could step back a little bit, and when you look at this Iran deal and all the other issues and unrest that's happening in the Middle East, what kind of Middle East do you want to leave when you leave the White House in a year and a half?

THE PRESIDENT: So the issue of the arms embargo and ballistic missiles is of real concern to us -- has been of real concern to us. And it is in the national security interest of the United States to prevent Iran from sending weapons to Hezbollah, for example, or sending weapons to the Houthis in Yemen that accelerate a civil war there.

We have a number of mechanisms under international law that give us authority to interdict arms shipments by Iran. One of those mechanisms is the U.N. security resolution related to Iran’s nuclear program. Essentially, Iran was sanctioned because of what had happened at Fordow, its unwillingness to comply with previous U.N. security resolutions about their nuclear program. And as part of the package of sanctions that was slapped on them, the issue of arms and ballistic missiles were included.

Now, under the terms of the original U.N. resolution, the fact is that once an agreement was arrived at that gave the international community assurance Iran didn't have a nuclear weapon, you could argue just looking at the text that those arms and ballistic missile prohibitions should immediately go away.

But what I said to our negotiators was given that Iran has breached trust, and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about Iran’s activities, let’s press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic missile prohibitions. And we got that. We got five years in which, under this new agreement, arms coming in and out of Iran are prohibited. And we got eight years with respect to ballistic missiles.

But part of the reason why we were willing to extend it only for five, let’s say, as opposed to a longer period of time, is because we have other U.N. resolutions that prohibit arms sales by Iran to organizations like Hezbollah. We have other U.N. resolutions and multilateral agreements that give us authority to interdict arms shipments from Iran throughout the region. And so we’ve had belts and suspenders and buttons, a whole bunch of different legal authorities. These legal authorities under the nuclear program may lapse after five or eight years, but we’ll still be in possession of other legal authorities that allow us to interdict those arms.

And truthfully, these prohibitions are not self-enforcing. It’s not like the U.N. has the capacity to police what Iran is doing.

What it does is it gives us authority under international law to prevent arms shipments from happening in concert with our allies and our partners. And the real problem, if you look at how, for example, Hezbollah got a lot of missiles that are a grave threat to Israel and many of our friends in the region, it’s not because they were legal. It’s not because somehow that was authorized under international law. It was because there was insufficient intelligence, or capacity, to stop those shipments.

So the bottom line is, Carol, I share the concerns of Israel, Saudis, Gulf partners about Iran shipping arms and causing conflict and chaos in the region. And that’s why I’ve said to them, let’s double down and partner much more effectively to improve our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity so that fewer of those arms shipments are getting through the net.

But the legal authorities, we’ll still possess. And obviously, we’ve got our own unilateral prohibitions and sanctions in place around non-nuclear issues, like support for Hezbollah. And those remain in place.

Now, in terms of the larger issues of the Middle East, obviously that’s a longer discussion. I think my key goal when I turn over the keys to the President -- the next President -- is that we are on track to defeat ISIL; that they are much more contained and we’re moving in the right direction there. That we have jumpstarted a process to resolve the civil war in Syria, which is like an open sore in the region and is giving refuge to terrorist organizations who are taking advantage of that chaos. To make sure that in Iraq not only have we pushed back ISIL, but we’ve also created an environment in which Sunni, Shia and Kurd are starting to operate and function more effectively together. And to be in a conversation with all our partners in the region about how we have strengthened our security partnerships so that they feel they can address any potential threats that may come, including threats from Iran. And that includes providing additional security assurances and cooperation to Israel, building on the unprecedented cooperation that we have already put in place and support that we’ve already put in place. It includes the work that we’ve done with the GCC up at Camp David, making sure that we execute that.

If we’ve done those things, then the problems in the Middle East will not be solved. And ultimately, it’s not the job of the President of the United States to solve every problem in the Middle East. The people of the Middle East are going to have to solve some of these problems themselves. But I think we can provide that next President at least a foundation for continued progress in these various areas.

The last thing I would say -- and this is a longer-term issue -- is we have to address the youth in the region with jobs and opportunity and a better vision for the future so that they are not tempted by the nihilistic, violent dead-end that organizations like ISIL offer. Again, we can’t do that entirely by ourselves, but we can partner with well-intentioned organizations, states, NGOs, religious leaders in the region. We have to do a better job of that than we’ve been doing so far.

Michael Crowley.

Q Thank you. You alluded earlier to Iran’s role in Syria, just to focus on that for a moment. Many analysts and some former members of your administration believe that the kind of negotiated political settlement that you say is necessary in Syria will require working directly with Iran and giving Iran an important role. Do you agree? And is that a dialogue you’ll be actively seeking?

And what about the fight against ISIS? What would it take for there to be explicit cooperation between the U.S. and Iran?

THE PRESIDENT: I do agree that we’re not going to solve the problems in Syria unless there’s buy-in from the Russians, the Iranians, the Turks, our Gulf partners. It’s too chaotic. There are too many factions. There’s too much money and too many arms flooding into the zone. It’s gotten caught up in both sectarian conflict and geopolitical jockeying. And in order for us to resolve it, there’s going to have to be agreement among the major powers that are interested in Syria that this is not going to be won on the battlefield. So Iran is one of those players, and I think that it’s important for them to be part of that conversation.

I want to repeat what I said earlier. We have not -- and I don’t anticipate any time in the near future -- restored normal diplomatic relations with Iran. And so I do not foresee a formal set of agreements with Iran in terms of how we’re conducting our counter-ISIL campaign.

But clearly, Iran has influence in Iraq. Iraq has a majority Shia population. They have relationships to Iran. Some are natural. We expect somebody like Prime Minister Abadi to meet with and negotiate and work with Iran as its neighbor. Some are less legitimate, where you see Iran financing Shia militias that in the past have killed American soldiers and in the future may carry out atrocities when they move into Sunni areas.

And so we’re working with our diplomats on the ground, as well as our military teams on the ground to asses where can we appropriately at least de-conflict, and where can we work with Prime Minister Abadi around an overall strategy for Iraq to regain its sovereignty, and where do we tell Abadi, you know what, what Iran is doing there is a problem, and we can’t cooperate in that area, for example, unless you get those folks out of there because we’re not going to have our troops, even in an advisory or training role, looking over their shoulders because they’re not sure of what might happen to them. And those conversations have been ongoing. I think they will continue.

The one thing you can count on is that any work that the U.S. government does, or the U.S. military does in Iraq with other partners on the ground is premised on the idea that they are reporting to -- under the chain of command of the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces. If we don’t have confidence that ultimately Abadi is directing those soldiers, then it’s tough for us to have any kind of direct relationship.

Major Garrett.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran -- three held on trumped-up charges, according to your administration; one, whereabouts unknown. Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all the fanfare around this deal, to leave the conscience of this nation and the strength of this nation unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?

And last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, under no circumstances should there be any relief for Iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. It is perceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations. Many in the Pentagon feel you’ve left the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hung out to dry. Could you comment?

THE PRESIDENT: I got to give you credit, Major, for how you craft those questions. The notion that I am content as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails -- Major, that’s nonsense, and you should know better.

I’ve met with the families of some of those folks. Nobody is content. And our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out.

Now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates. Suddenly, Iran realizes, you know what, maybe we can get additional concessions out of the Americans by holding these individuals. It makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if Iran somehow thinks that a nuclear deal is dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal. And, by the way, if we had walked away from the nuclear deal, we’d still be pushing them just as hard to get these folks out. That’s why those issues are not connected. But we are working every single day to try to get them out, and won’t stop until they’re out and rejoined with their families.

With respect to the Chairman’s testimony, to some degree I already answered this with Carol. We are not taking the pressure off Iran with respect to arms and with respect to ballistic missiles. As I just explained, not only do we keep in place for five years the arms embargo under this particular new U.N. resolution, not only do we maintain the eight years on the ballistic missiles under this particular U.N. resolution, but we have a host of other multilateral and unilateral authorities that allow us to take action where we see Iran engaged in those activities whether it’s six years from now or 10 years from now.

So we have not lost those legal authorities. And in fact, part of my pitch to the GCC countries, as well as to Prime Minister Netanyahu, is we should do a better job making sure that Iran is not engaged in sending arms to organizations like Hezbollah. And as I just indicated, that means improving our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity with our partners.

April Ryan.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I want to change the subject a bit. Earlier this year, on the flight to Selma, you said, on matters of race, as President your job is to close the remaining gaps that are left in state and federal government. Now, how does criminal justice reform fit into that equation? And what gaps remain for you towards the end of your presidency? And also, what does it mean to travel to Kenya, your father’s homeland, in the next couple of weeks as President to the United States? And lastly, would you revoke the Medal of Freedom from Bill Cosby?

THE PRESIDENT: You stuffed a lot in there, April. (Laughter.)

Q I learned from my colleagues.

THE PRESIDENT: Say, who did you learn from? Jonathan Karl? Is that what you said? (Laughter.)

Q On criminal justice reform, obviously I gave a lengthy speech yesterday, but this is something that I’ve been thinking about a lot; been working first with Eric Holder, now with Loretta Lynch about -- we’ve been working on along with other prosecutors of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. It’s an outgrowth of the task force that we put together, post-Ferguson and the Garner case in New York.

And I don’t think that the criminal justice system is obviously the sole source of racial tension in this country, or the key institution to resolving the opportunity gap. But I think it is a part of the broader set of challenges that we face in creating a more perfect union.

And the good news is, is that this is one of those rare issues where we’ve got some Republican and Democratic interest, as well as federal, state, and local interest in solving the problem. I think people recognize that there are violent criminals out there and they’ve got to be locked up. We’ve got to have tough prosecutors, we have to support our law enforcement officials. Police are in a tough job and they are helping to keep us safe, and we are grateful and thankful to them.

But what we also know is this huge spike in incarcerations is also driven by non-violent drug offenses where the sentencing is completely out of proportion with the crime. And that costs taxpayers enormous amounts of money. It is debilitating communities who are seeing huge proportions of the young men in their communities finding themselves with a criminal record, rendering them oftentimes unemployable. So it compounds problems that these communities already have.

And so I am very appreciative of folks like Dick Durbin and Cory Booker, alongside Mike Lee and Rand Paul and other folks in the House who are working together to see if we can both reduce some of these mandatory minimums around non-violent drug offenses. Because again, I tend not to have a lot of sympathy when it comes to violent crime. But when it comes to non-violent drug offenses, is there work that we can do to reduce mandatory minimums, create more diversion programs like drug courts? Then, can we do a better job on the rehabilitation side inside of prisons so that we are preparing these folks who are eventually going to be released to reenter the workforce? On the back end, are we doing more to link them up with reentry programs that are effective?

And this may be an area where we could have some really significant bipartisan legislation that doesn't eliminate all the other challenges we’ve got. Because the most important goal is keeping folks from getting in the criminal justice system in the first place, which means early childhood education and good jobs, and making sure that we're not segregating folks in impoverished communities that have no contact with opportunity.

But this can make a difference. I met these four ex-offenders, as I said, yesterday, and what was remarkable was how they had turned their lives around. And these were some folks who had been some pretty tough criminals. One of them had served 10 years; another was a repeat offender that had served a lot of time. And in each instance, somebody intervened at some point in their lives -- once they had already been in the criminal justice system, once they had already gotten in trouble -- and said, you know what, I think you can live a different way, and I’m willing to help you.

And that one person, an art teacher, or a GED teacher, or somebody who was willing to offer a guy a job -- I want to give a shout-out to Five Guys, because one of the guys there was an ex-felon, and Five Guys gave him a job. And he ended up becoming a manager at the store and was able to completely turn his life around. But the point was, somebody reached out to that person and gave him a chance.

And so part of our question should be, how about somebody reaching out to these guys when they’re 10, or 11, or 12, or eight, as opposed to waiting until they’ve already gone through a criminal justice program. That’s part of why we’re doing My Brother’s Keeper. But this is an area where I feel modestly optimistic.

I think in the meantime we’ve got to stay on top of keeping the crime rate down, because part of the reason I think there’s a conversation taking place is violent crime has significantly dropped. Last year, we saw both incarcerations and the crime rate drop, and this can always turn if we start seeing renewed problems in terms of violent crime. And there’s parts of the country where violent crime is still a real problem, including my hometown of Chicago, and in Baltimore.

And part of what I’ve asked Attorney General Lynch to do is to figure out how can we refocus attention. If we’re going to do a package of criminal justice reforms, part of it would be actually having a greater police presence and more law enforcement in the communities that are really getting hit hard and haven’t seen some of the drops in violent crime that we’ve seen in places like Manhattan, for example.

With respect to the visit to Kenya, it’s obviously something I’m looking forward to. I’ll be honest with you, visiting Kenya as a private citizen is probably more meaningful to me than visiting as President because I can actually get outside of a hotel room or a conference center. And just the logistics of visiting a place are always tough as President, but it’s obviously symbolically important. And my hope is, is that we can deliver a message that the U.S. is a strong partner not just for Kenya, but for Sub-Saharan Africa generally; build on the progress that’s been made around issues of health and education; focus on counterterrorism issues that are important in East Africa because of al-Shabaab and some of the tragedies that have happened inside of Kenya; and continue to encourage democracy and the reduction of corruption inside that country that sometimes has held back this incredibly gifted and blessed country.

And with respect to the Medal of Freedom, there’s no precedent for revoking a medal. We don’t have that mechanism. And as you know, I tend to make it a policy not to comment on the specifics of cases where there might still be, if not criminal, then civil issues involved.

I’ll say this: If you give a woman -- or a man, for that matter -- without his or her knowledge, a drug, and then have sex with that person without consent, that’s rape. And I think this country -- any civilized country -- should have no tolerance for rape.

All right. Have we exhausted Iran questions here? I think there’s a helicopter that’s coming. But I really am enjoying this Iran debate. Topics that may not have been touched upon, criticisms that you’ve heard that I did not answer? Go ahead. I know Josh is getting a little stressed here -- (laughter) -- but I just want to make sure that we’re not leaving any stones unturned here. Go ahead.

Q Thanks, Mr. President. I’ll be brief. The argument has been made that Iran now has a cash windfall, billions to spend. Your people seem confident they’re going to spend it at home. Why are you confident they’re not going to spend it on arming Hezbollah, arming Bashar al-Assad, et cetera?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that’s a great question and I’m glad you brought it up. I think it is a mistake to characterize our belief that they will just spend it on daycare centers, and roads, and paying down debt. We think that they have to do some of that, because Rouhani was elected specifically on the premise of improving the economic situation inside of Iran. That economy has tanked since we imposed sanctions.

So the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the IRGC or the Quds Force I think runs contrary to all the intelligence that we’ve seen and the commitments that the Iranian government has made.

Do we think that with the sanctions coming down, that Iran will have some additional resources for its military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and a threat to our allies? I think that is a likelihood that they’ve got some additional resources. Do I think it’s a game-changer for them? No.

They are currently supporting Hezbollah, and there is a ceiling -- a pace at which they could support Hezbollah even more, particularly in the chaos that's taking place in Syria. So can they potentially try to get more assistance there? Yes. Should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to Hezbollah? Yes. Is the incremental additional money that they’ve got to try to destabilize the region or send to their proxies, is that more important than preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? No. So I think -- again, this is a matter of us making a determination of what is our priority.

The other problem with the argument that folks have been making about, oh, this is a windfall and suddenly Iran is flushed with cash, and they're going to take over the world. And I say that not tongue-in-cheek, because if you look at some of the statements by some of our critics, you would think that Iran is, in fact, going to take over the world as a consequence of this deal -- which I think would be news to the Iranians.

That argument is also premised on the notion that if there is no deal, if Congress votes down this deal, that we're able to keep sanctions in place with the same vigor and effectiveness as we have right now. And that, I can promise you, is not true. That is absolutely not true. I want to repeat: We're not writing Iran a check. This is Iran’s money that we were able to block from them having access to. That required the cooperation of countries all around the world, many of whom really want to purchase oil from Iran. The imposition of sanctions -- their cooperation with us -- has cost them billions of dollars, made it harder for them. They’ve been willing to do that because they’ve believed we were sincere about trying to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully, and they considered that a priority -- a high enough priority that they were willing to cooperate with us on sanctions.

If they saw us walking away, or more specifically, if they saw the U.S. Congress effectively vetoing the judgment of 99 percent of the world community that this is a deal that resolves the Iranian weapons program -- nuclear weapons program in an equitable way, the sanctions system unravels. And so we could still maintain some of our unilateral sanctions, but it would be far less effective -- as it was before we were able to put together these multilateral sanctions.

So maybe they don't get $100 billion; maybe they get $60 billion or $70 billion instead. The price for that that we’ve paid is that now Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. We have no inspectors on the ground. We don't know what’s going on. They’re still getting some cash windfall. We’ve lost credibility in the eyes of the world. We will have effectively united Iran and divided ourselves from our allies. A terrible position to be in.

I'm just going to look -- I made some notes about any of the arguments -- the other arguments that I’ve heard here.

Q What about -- (off-mic) -- the end of the deal?

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, yes, that’s a good one. The notion --

Q At the end of the deal they could go back --

THE PRESIDENT: Right. Well, so let’s address this issue of -- because that’s the other big argument that’s been made. All right, let’s assume that the deal holds for 10 years, Iran doesn’t cheat. Now, at the end of 10 years, some of the restrictions have been lifted -- although, remember, others stay in place for 15 years. So for example, they’ve still got to keep their stockpiles at a minimal level for 15 years. The inspections don’t go away; those are still in place 15, 20 years from now. Their commitment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty does not go away; that’s still in place. The additional protocol that they have to sign up for under this deal, which requires a more extensive inspection and verification mechanism -- that stays in place.

So there’s no scenario in which a U.S. President is not in a stronger position 12, 13, 15 years from now if, in fact, Iran decided at that point they still wanted to get a nuclear weapon. Keep in mind, we will have maintained a one-year breakout time, we will have rolled back their program, frozen their facilities, kept them under severe restrictions, had observers. They will have made international commitments supported by countries around the world.

And -- hold on a second -- and if at that point they finally decided, you know what, we’re going to cheat, or not even cheat -- at that point, they decide openly we’re now pursuing a nuclear weapon -- they’re still in violation of this deal and the commitments they’ve made internationally.

And so we are still in a position to mobilize the world community to say, no, you can’t have a nuclear weapon. And they’re not in a stronger position to get a nuclear weapon at that point; they’re in a weaker position than they are today. And, by the way, we haven’t given away any of our military capabilities. We’re not in a weaker position to respond.

So even if everything the critics were saying was true -- that at the end of 10 years, or 12 years, or 15 years, Iran now is in a position to decide it wants a nuclear weapon, that they’re at a breakout point -- they won’t be at a breakout point that is more dangerous than the breakout point they’re in right now. They won’t be at a breakout point that is shorter than the one that exists today. And so why wouldn’t we at least make sure that for the next 10, 15, years they are not getting a nuclear weapon and we can verify it; and afterwards, if they decide if they’ve changed their mind, we are then much more knowledgeable about what their capabilities are, much more knowledgeable about what their program is, and still in a position to take whatever actions we would take today?

Q So none of this is holding out hope that they’ll change their behavior?

THE PRESIDENT: No.

Q Nothing different --

THE PRESIDENT: No. Look, I'm always hopeful that behavior may change for the sake of the Iranian people as well as people in the region. There are young people there who are not getting the opportunities they deserve because of conflict, because of sectarianism, because of poor governance, because of repression, because of terrorism. And I remain eternally hopeful that we can do something about that, and it should be part of U.S. foreign policy to do something about that. But I'm not banking on that to say that this deal is the right thing to do.

Again, it is incumbent on the critics of this deal to explain how an American President is in a worse position 12, 13, 14, 15 years from now if, in fact, at that point Iran says we’re going to pull out of the NPT, kick out inspectors and go for a nuclear bomb. If that happens, that President will be in a better position than what happened if Iran, as a consequence of Congress rejecting this deal, decides that’s it, we’re done negotiating, we’re going after a bomb right now.

The choices would be tougher today than they would be for that President 15 years from now. And I have not yet heard logic that refutes that.

All right. I really have to go now. I think we’ve hit the big themes. But I promise you, I will address this again. All right? I suspect this is not the last that we’ve heard of this debate.

END
2:33 P.M. EDT

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/15/press-conference-president , alternate/backup at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/transcript-obamas-news-conference-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal/ [with non-YouTube video of the press conference embedded, and comments]

*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsPHjI6pCbo [with comments] [also at e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPUIuhzEau8 (no comments yet), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xt527gbZbQ (with comments), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjybmyoCJ0s (no comments yet), and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1DNXVC5o48 (with comment); NYT livestream, press conference beginning at the 46:05 mark, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baor-tcH6jo (comments disabled)]


--


Pres. Obama: This deal makes the world safer

NOW With Alex Wagner
7/15/15

President Obama offers an extensive defense of his landmark nuclear agreement with Iran. A panel joins NOW to discuss President Obama's response to critics of the deal. Duration: 13:38

The Iran deal is historic. And only Obama could have gotten it.
July 15, 2015
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8970429/iran-nuclear-deal-obama

©2015 NBCNews.com

http://www.msnbc.com/now/watch/pres.-obama--this-deal-makes-the-world-safer-484949571735 [with comments]


--


Rick Perry: Obama Is 'A Very, Very Naive Man'

The 2016 GOP candidate slammed the Iranian nuclear deal.
07/15/2015
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-perry-barack-obama_55a6df30e4b0896514d04c83 [with comments]


--


Obama eager to engage conservative critics on Iran deal

The Rachel Maddow Show
7/15/15

Rachel Maddow reviews past conservative freak-outs over U.S. diplomatic outreach to international rivals and notes that President Obama, at his press conference today, was so insistent on addressing critics that he brought up the questions himself. Duration: 5:49

©2015 NBCNews.com

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/obama-eager-to-engage-critics-on-iran-deal-485140547613 [with comments] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-july-15-2015-trms (no comments yet)]


--


Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz talks Iran deal details with Rachel Maddow

The Rachel Maddow Show
7/15/15

Ernest Moniz, United States Secretary of Energy, talks with Rachel Maddow about the details of the nuclear deal with Iran, including the 24-day window Iran is allowed before inspections on accusations of cheating, and remaining U.S. grievances with Iran. Duration: 5:47

©2015 NBCNews.com

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/energy-secretary-moniz-on-iran-deal-details-485133379890 [with comments] [show links at http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-july-15-2015-trms (no comments yet)]


--


Trump reacts to Obama's Iran deal presser, El Chapo's escape

Hannity
Jul. 15, 2015

2016 GOP presidential candidate sounds off on 'Hannity'. Duration: 14:33

©2015 FOX News Network, LLC

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4357099189001/trump-reacts-to-obamas-iran-deal-presser-el-chapos-escape/?#sp=show-clips [the above YouTube of the segment at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajpPAgWeV90 (with comments)]


--


Obama thanks Putin for role in Iran deal

Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:14pm EDT

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama telephoned Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday to thank him for his part in the recent nuclear deal with Iran, the White House said.

"The President thanked President Putin for Russia's important role in achieving this milestone, the culmination of nearly 20 months of intense negotiations," the White House said in a statement.

It added that Obama and Putin agreed to remain in close touch as the Iran deal is implemented and would work together to reduce tensions in the Middle East, particularly in Syria.

Russia was one of the six major powers that negotiated the deal reached with Iran on Tuesday in Vienna. The others were the United States, Germany, the European Union, China, Britain and France.

(Reporting by Julia Edwards in Denison, Texas, and Sandra Maler in Washington; Editing by Peter Cooney)

More From Reuters

Clinton tells Trump ‘enough’ | 13 Jul
http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2015/07/13/clinton-tells-trump-enough/

Big loser in any nuclear deal with Iran may be Russia | 9 Jul
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/09/big-loser-in-any-nuclear-deal-with-iran-may-be-russia/

Exclusive: Rice - Iran cannot avoid inspections of suspicious sites | 16 Jul
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/16/us-iran-nuclear-rice-exclusive-idUSKCN0PP2V920150716

Why Russia’s turn to China is a mirage | 8 Jul
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/08/why-russias-turn-to-china-is-a-mirage/

© 2015 Thomson Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/16/us-iran-nuclear-russia-call-idUSKCN0PP2RI20150716


--


U.S. Offers to Help Israel Bolster Defenses, Yet Iran Nuclear Deal Leaves Ally Uneasy

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel with President Obama at the White House in 2013.
JULY 15, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/world/middleeast/us-offers-to-help-israel-bolster-defenses-yet-nuclear-deal-leaves-ally-uneasy.html


--


If you love peace, you will loathe the Iran deal

Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference on the Iran nuclear talks on Tuesday at Austria International Centre in Vienna.
By Jennifer Rubin
July 16, 2015
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/16/destroying-iran-sanctions-boosts-the-military-option/ [with comments]


--


Israeli Opposition Leader: Iran Deal Will Bring Chaos to the Middle East

Isaac Herzog, foreign-minister-in-waiting, believes Israel is endangered by the Vienna agreement.
Jul 16, 2015
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/israel-isaac-herzog-iran-nuclear-deal/398705/


--


Iran's conservatives take aim at nuclear deal


Iranians celebrate on the streets following a nuclear deal with major powers, in Tehran July 14, 2015.
Reuters/TIMA

DUBAI | By Bozorgmehr Sharafedin Nouri
Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:56pm EDT

Iran's security hawks have begun sniping at their country's historic nuclear deal, emboldened a day after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described some of the world powers that signed it as "untrustworthy".

Khamenei's remark will be understood by Iranians to refer largely to the United States and Britain, the "Great and Little Satans" long reviled by Iran's revolutionary theocracy for their support of the Shah, overthrown in 1979.

The comment carries weight, because the conservative cleric is the ultimate arbiter of high state policy under Iran's unwieldy dual system of clerical and republican rule.

Khamenei did voice guarded appreciation of the deal, saying it was significant, and urged calm, perhaps alluding to surging popular hopes for an end to Iran's isolation, or to strains between the supporters of the deal and its critics.

But his downbeat, measured tone was in contrast to lavish praise for the agreement from pragmatic President Hassan Rouhani and his Western-educated foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Figures close to Khamenei lost little time in taking aim at the accord, which lifts sanctions on Tehran in return for Iran accepting long-term curbs on a nuclear program that the West has suspected was aimed at creating a nuclear bomb.

PACT WITH THE DEVIL?

One saw worrying discrepancies between the U.S. and Iranian interpretations of what had been agreed.

"The Iranian fact-sheet of the conclusion of the deal issued by the foreign ministry had significant differences with what America's president mentioned in his remarks,” Mohammad Kazem Anbarlui wrote in an editorial for the conservative newspaper Resalat.

"The fact-sheet of the rival shows that Iranian red lines, particularly about the lifting of sanctions, have not been observed. The phrases and words used in the text contain parentheses and it is loaded with interpretable, ambiguous or multi-meaning expressions," he added.

Some conservatives believe reaching a deal with Washington is tantamount to a pact with the devil.

While Khamenei will have the last word on the deal, hardliners want the text subjected to rigorous scrutiny when it is submitted for consideration to parliament and the National Security Council.

These critics had a mild but visible presence in the streets on Tuesday when the deal was announced.

An eyewitness told Reuters that, in the Karaj suburb of Tehran, a man who was handing out sweets to people for "nuclear victory" was shoved and roughed up by long bearded men who looked like members of the hardline Basij militia.

Another eyewitness told Reuters that Basij on motorbikes made their presence felt in the affluent Vanak Square in north Tehran to show dissatisfaction with street jubilations. They were outnumbered by young people dancing. No clash was reported.

Security hardliners such as the Basij and the leaders of the Revolutionary Guards Corps carry real clout.

Conservative leaders of the Guards opposed many policies of reformist president Mohammad Khatami, who served from 1997 to 2005, and helped to scuttle his boldest initiatives.

The Guards and the Basij also helped suppress huge street protests that followed the disputed re-election of hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009.

The two organizations are part of Iran's unwieldy system of competing power structures, some of which, like the Guards, have their own business empires.

Critics of Rouhani's outreach to the West started their political campaign last year, announcing their concerns about Tehran's possible concessions in nuclear negotiations. After a lavish conference titled "We are worried about a bad deal", they have simply become known as "The Worried".

While not a political party, "The Worried" is an umbrella term describing those with a deep affiliation with hardline conservatives and those who criticize Rouhani's government.

ISLAMIC STATE

They have doubts about the Rouhani's government efforts to establish trust with the Americans. Zarif has said he would like the deal to open new horizons in Iran-U.S. relations to address what he called important "common challenges" in the region, especially the rise of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Khamenei has not expressed support for that idea.

Last week, answering a student who asked him what would happen to the 'fight against global arrogance' after the completion of nuclear talks between Iran and world powers, Khamenei replied that "the U.S. is the true embodiment of global arrogance" and "the fight cannot be interrupted".

"In contrast to what's been said, this deal will not lead to cooperation between Iran and the U.S. in the region, but will increase the tension between them," Mohammad Sarafi wrote in Kayhan, a newspaper closely associated with Khamenei.

"It’s not the first time that some traitors have tried to put make-up on the face of the Great Satan. They believe we should surrender to U.S. hegemony and whitewash their crimes."

Reformists in Iran have called the nuclear deal a turning point in the history of the Islamic Republic, and the day the revolutionary slogan "Death to America!" became defunct.

Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani last week talked about the possibility of reopening the U.S. embassy in Iran if the deal were reached.

But in the short term at least, that appears unlikely.

"I don't think there will be an American embassy in Tehran in near future," says Abbas Abdi, one of the students who attacked the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 but is now a prominent reformist.

"We should not forget Iran-U.S. relations are not an international issue. It has been taken hostage by domestic political rivalries in both countries and it will continue to be so."

(Reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin, Editing by William Maclean, Kevin Liffey and Paul Taylor)

© 2015 Thomson Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/16/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PQ1TQ20150716


--


Iranian Hard-Liners Say Nuclear Accord Crosses Their Red Lines


Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, issued in June a list of seven "major red lines" that should not be crossed in a nuclear agreement.
Credit Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Graphic
The Iran Nuclear Deal – A Simple Guide
A guide to help you navigate the talks between global powers and Tehran.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/31/world/middleeast/simple-guide-nuclear-talks-iran-us.html

Graphic
Who Got What They Wanted in the Iran Nuclear Deal
Here is a look at what Iran and the United States wanted, and what they got.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/14/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-who-got-what-they-wanted.html

By THOMAS ERDBRINK
JULY 16, 2015

TEHRAN — When Iran [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html ]’s supreme leader sent a note to the country’s president, thanking him for bringing the nuclear negotiations with the United States and other world powers to a conclusion, he added an important caveat. The comprehensive plan needs “close scrutiny,” the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/ali_khamenei/index.html ], wrote, adding: “Be concerned about possible violations of the commitments in the accord by other parties.”

The tone of the letter might have seemed friendly to those not familiar with the supreme leader’s style, said Hamidreza Taraghi, a political analyst close to Ayatollah Khamenei.

“But the reaction was cold,” he said. “Notice how he only thanked the negotiators but did not congratulate them on a victory. Our leader is worried about several points in the deal.”

Prominent hard-liners, previously muzzled on the nuclear talks, took the letter as a signal that they were free to criticize the deal.

In a hastily assembled news conference in Tehran on Thursday, hard-line analysts triumphantly announced they would do the leader’s bidding by examining the agreement for any devious legal tricks or loopholes the “arrogant” nations might be trying to slip into the text.

“We are here to help the government,” said Foad Izadi, a professor of public diplomacy at the University of Tehran. “But it is clear there are serious problems with this agreement.”

While not wanting to get too far ahead of the supreme leader, who will give a speech Saturday at the end of Ramadan, the hard-liners’ strategy has been to examine the accord to see whether it violates any of the seven “major red lines” set by Ayatollah Khamenei in a statement published by his office on June 23.

So when some Iranians danced in the streets on Tuesday celebrating a deal that most saw as a way to finally get the economic sanctions lifted, hard-liners turned off their phones, took up their magnifying glasses and began checking the 159 pages of the plan drawn up in Vienna.

They were disturbed by what they found. “We quickly realized that what we had feared all the time had become a reality,” said Alireza Mataji, an organizer of the Tehran event. “If Iran agrees with this our nuclear industry will be handcuffed for many years to come.”

In the list of major red lines, Ayatollah Khamenei had said that he strongly opposed long-term restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html ]. “Despite United States insistence, we do not accept 10, 12-year-long restrictions, and the negotiators are already informed about an acceptable time-frame,” he said.

In the “Joint Plan of Action” presented by Iran and the world powers on Tuesday, the hard-liners say, many of the restrictions go far beyond 10 or 12 years.

Several parts of the deal end after 10 years. But it calls for a 15-year restriction on any enrichment activities in the underground bunker complex of Fordo. Iran is also barred from accumulating heavy water or building a heavy water reactor for a period of 15 years. Nor will it be allowed to reprocess any spent fuel or conduct research on spent fuel.

“That they constantly repeat time frames of 15 years or 25 years for some topics is not accepted,” Ayatollah Khamenei said on June 23, spelling out red line No. 7, according to his office.

The International Atomic Energy Agency [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/international_atomic_energy_agency/index.html ], the United Nations nuclear watchdog, will monitor the production of uranium ore concentrate for 25 years, the document says.

In the same statement, Ayatollah Khamenei stressed that he does not accept verification by the atomic agency, red line No. 5. “They claim that the I.A.E.A. must confirm,” he said. “What a nonsense statement is it?”

At the news conference on Thursday, Mr. Izadi said he had counted a total of 19 red lines by the supreme leader. “Out of those, 18 and a half have been crossed,” he said. “They wanted to completely close Fordo, but we have managed to keep it open, without any enrichment unfortunately. That is one achievement.”

A handful of reporters, all writing for hard-line news outlets, wrote down every word.

In the statement, Ayatollah Khamenei ruled out the inspection of military sites. Red line No. 6, his office noted. “I never accept unconventional inspections or interrogation of individuals,” Ayatollah Khamenei said. “I have already asserted that no inspection of military sites can ever be done.”

Under the agreement, international inspectors should be granted access to suspicious nuclear facilities in a maximum of 24 days, even if they are military sites.

At the news conference, a professor of political science and international relations, Mohammad Sadegh Koshki, said that even a confirmation of the deal by the United Nations Security Council is a bad move for Iran. Iran’s government says that a new resolution would make it harder for the United States Congress to reject the deal.

But Mr. Koshki, who regularly appears on state television, said that it would turn the permanent members of the Security Council into arbitrators, ultimately deciding whether Iran was sticking to its commitments.

“How can Iran complain against the people it made a deal with when they occupy the permanent seats of the Security Council,” he said. “The text is also full of ambiguous words regarding the lifting of the sanctions. We must study this very carefully.”

It is possible that the red lines were part of Iran’s negotiating strategy, designed to get the best possible deal, and will now be forgotten, said one analyst, who insisted on not being named in discussing the supreme leader’s role. “Mr. Khamenei is the ultimate balancer of Iran’s factions,” the analyst said, “don’t take the red lines too seriously.”

He added: “This entire process was started by the supreme leader. He has monitored and guided these talks all these years. He knows this is the best deal he could get.”

Related Coverage

News Analysis: Netanyahu May Turn Iran Defeat to His Favor
JULY 16, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/world/middleeast/iran-israel-benjamin-netanyahu.html

Former U.S. Diplomats Praise Iran Deal
JULY 16, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/us/politics/former-us-diplomats-praise-iran-deal.html

‘Snapback’ Is an Easy Way to Reimpose Iran Penalties
JULY 16, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/world/middleeast/snapback-is-easy-way-to-reimpose-iran-penalties.html

After Iran Nuclear Deal, Foreign Business Opportunities Will Be Slow
JULY 15, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-will-not-immediately-boost-economy.html

Clearing Hurdles to Iran Nuclear Deal With Standoffs, Shouts and Compromise
JULY 15, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/world/middleeast/clearing-hurdles-to-iran-nuclear-deal-with-standoffs-shouts-and-compromise.html

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei Urges ‘Careful Scrutiny’ of Iran Deal
JULY 15, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/world/middleeast/supreme-leader-ali-khamenei-urges-careful-scrutiny-of-iran-deal.html

© 2015 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/world/middleeast/iranian-hard-liners-say-nuclear-accord-crosses-their-red-lines.html


--


What does the nuclear deal mean for Iran and the region?


Members from Hashid Shaabi hold portraits of lawmaker and paramilitary commander Hadi al-Amiri (C), Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (R) and Iraq’s top Shi’ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani during a demonstration to show support for Yemen’s Shi’ite Houthis and in protest of an air campaign in Yemen by a Saudi-led coalition, in Baghdad, March 31, 2015.
REUTERS/Thaier Al-Sudani

By Dina Esfandiary and Amir Handjani
July 16, 2015

With a nuclear deal done with Iran, attention shifts to its impact on regional security. The nuclear agreement will ensure that a barrier to dialogue with Iran is removed. In the short term, its regional impact will be minimal, but over time the agreement should temper Iran’s regional policy.

There is little doubt that a strong, more moderate and independent Iran will naturally pursue its own interests. But Tehran will be more understanding of Western goals if it develops ties with the European Union and the United States. While partnership isn’t in the cards, the deal opens the door to sustained, tactical cooperation with Iran — a necessity in a crumbling region. And opportunities for that are numerous, including in the fight against Islamic State and in stabilizing Afghanistan.

The battle against Islamic State in Iraq presents the most immediate opportunity for engagement. Iran is more committed [ http://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/iran%E2%80%99s-isis-policy ] to Iraq than any other regional player. Because it’s impossible to contain and roll Islamic State back with just U.S.-led air strikes, ground assistance of the type Iran is providing is welcome, so long as it doesn’t come at the expense of Iraq’s Sunni population.

With the deal, coordination among all sides becomes easier. While no one envisages joint combat roles, separate and complementary tactical approaches, and coordination between the coalition and Iran, will ultimately make the fight against Islamic State more effective. Working with Iran may give the United States and its allies greater influence over Iranian actions on the ground. As the campaign progresses, it will be increasingly important to manage the Shi’ite militias under Tehran’s influence.

Syria is more problematic. Iran’s support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad contradicts Western goals. The nuclear negotiations have facilitated dialogue with Iran. The nuclear deal could ensure Tehran plays a more constructive role in resolving the crisis and managing the humanitarian catastrophe created by Syria’s civil war.

The Gulf Arabs have not made it a secret that they oppose the nuclear deal with Iran. Their primary concern is Iran’s expansionist regional policy. They believe the deal will provide Iran further means to fund its proxies and destabilize the region at their expense.

Saudi Arabia was most vocal in its skepticism of the negotiations. With its recent assertive foreign policy, Riyadh intends to counter perceived Iranian influence either overtly or through check-book diplomacy. This has proven to be largely ineffective. Yemen is the best example. Sustained Saudi bombing hasn’t change facts on the ground in its favour. With the agreement, the need to counter Iran will become further entrenched in Riyadh’s mind. This will inflame sectarian conflicts in the region for the foreseeable future.

While also skeptical of the deal, the United Arab Emirates was the first Persian Gulf state to send a congratulatory note [ http://www.wam.ae/en/news/emirates/1395283286975.html ] to Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani. Abu Dhabi will have to navigate the post-sanctions environment carefully to avoid a reemergence of tensions with the emirate of Dubai as Iran opens up to business and it reemerges as a trading hub. While Dubai will welcome the business opportunities, Abu Dhabi will remain sceptical of Iran’s ability to play a constructive role in the region.

But the Gulf Arab states are limited in their ability to respond. The threat to acquire nuclear weapons is unlikely [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/04/28/why-an-iran-deal-wont-lead-to-nuclear-proliferation/ ] to materialize, and reckless action like that taken in Yemen won’t help their cause. They should welcome the deal, which will empower the team in Iran that actively seeks normalization with the rest of the region.

The deal sent shockwaves through Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing cabinet riled against any compromise with Tehran that would leave it with indigenous uranium-enrichment capability. But Israel’s options were always restricted. Outside a unilateral military strike plunging the region into chaos, a negotiated settlement curbing Iran’s program was the best it could hope for.

Netanyahu’s saber rattling [ http://www.wsj.com/articles/netanyahu-calls-iran-deal-historic-mistake-1436866617 ] leaves Israel worse off. By rejecting anything short of Iranian capitulation, Israel is at odds with the major world powers. Ultimately, Netanyahu should view its greatest adversary and its greatest ally at the negotiating table as being in Israel’s long-term security interest. Who better to pass messages to Tehran about regional concerns than Washington?

No doubt Netanyahu will lean on the Republican-controlled Congress to reject the deal. His standoff with President Barack Obama will further undermine his relationship with an increasingly popular president. But this, too, shall pass; Israel’s security will continue to be the bedrock of U.S. foreign policy. Over time, the deal will allow for a constructive dialogue on regional issues that Tehran, Washington and Jerusalem must participate in. Islamic State, Syria and Lebanon won’t go away. All three are on Israel’s doorstep. All three require Iranian involvement to manage.

A widespread fear is that Iran will use the frozen assets it will get from the lifting of the sanctions to fund its regional ambitions. But Tehran’s regional forays have been conducted despite the stringent sanctions. Iran faces massive unemployment, runaway inflation, devaluation of its currency and a decrease in oil prices. If anything, it needs to bring some of that money home to rehabilitate its beleaguered economy. And that’s exactly what Rouhani aims to do. Such fears are misguided [ http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/16/column-newphew-idAFL1N0Z12B220150616 ].

Today, Iran’s influence in the region is a fact of life. The deal makes dialogue with Iran the norm rather than the exception. The wager is that this will make Tehran a more constructive and responsible regional player.

Related

Israel won’t strike Iran alone, no matter how much it hates the nuclear deal
July 15, 2015
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/15/israel-wont-strike-iran-alone-no-matter-how-much-it-hates-the-nuclear-deal/

© 2015 Thomson Reuters

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/16/what-iran-deal-means-for-the-region/


--


All Praise To Barack Obama—-He’s Giving Peace A Chance
by David Stockman
July 16, 2015
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/all-praise-to-barrack-obama-hes-giving-peace-a-chance/ [with comments] [h/t shermann7 ({linked in} http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115467031 {and any future following})]


--


Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

Uploaded on Apr 19, 2007 by mckathomas [ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqqZxcsDn9VbocIjLIDjPcg / http://www.youtube.com/user/mckathomas , http://www.youtube.com/user/mckathomas/videos ]

Sen. John McCain: Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

McCain criticizes deal to block Iranian nuclear program

9:29 a.m. MST July 14, 2015
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/politics/2015/07/14/john-mccain-criticize-obama-iran-nuclear-deal/30133809/

John McCain Denounces Iran Deal, Says ‘We’re Losing Badly’ to ISIS

July 15, 2015
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/15/mccain-denounces-iran-deal-says-were-losing-badly-to-isis/ , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkCmpF6vbRs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg [with (over 4,000) comments]


--


Transcript [and embedded audio]: Obama's Speech at AIPAC

June 04, 2008 11:10 AM ET

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama delivered a speech on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The speech comes the day after he secured enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination and become the first African-American candidate for president. In these prepared remarks provided by his campaign, Obama tries to allay doubts that some Jewish voters have expressed about his candidacy. He talks about his great-uncle's service in World War II, as a member of the infantry division that first liberated a Nazi concentration camp. He also calls Israel's security non-negotiable and compares his policies toward Israel with those of Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain.

It's great to see so many friends from across the country. I want to congratulate Howard Friedman, David Victor and Howard Kohr on a successful conference, and on the completion of a new headquarters just a few blocks away.

Before I begin, I want to say that I know some provocative e-mails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. A few of you may have gotten them. They're filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for president. And all I want to say is — let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening.

But if anyone has been confused by these e-mails, I want you to know that today I'll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever.

One of the many things that I admire about AIPAC is that you fight for this common cause from the bottom up. The lifeblood of AIPAC is here in this room — grass-roots activists of all ages, from all parts of the country, who come to Washington year after year to make your voices heard. Nothing reflects the face of AIPAC more than the 1,200 students who have traveled here to make it clear to the world that the bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than our shared national interests — it's rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people. And as president, I will work with you to ensure that this bond is strengthened.

I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was 11 years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland, in the face of impossible odds.

The story made a powerful impression on me. I had grown up without a sense of roots. My father was black; he was from Kenya, and he left us when I was 2. My mother was white; she was from Kansas, and I'd moved with her to Indonesia and then back to Hawaii. In many ways, I didn't know where I came from. So I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea — that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.

I also learned about the horror of the Holocaust, and the terrible urgency it brought to the journey home to Israel. For much of my childhood, I lived with my grandparents. My grandfather had served in World War II, and so had my great-uncle. He was a Kansas boy who probably never expected to see Europe — let alone the horrors that awaited him there. And for months after he came home from Germany, he remained in a state of shock, alone with the painful memories that wouldn't leave his head.

You see, my great-uncle had been a part of the 89th Infantry Division — the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. They liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, on an April day in 1945. The horrors of that camp go beyond our capacity to imagine. Tens of thousands died of hunger, torture, disease, or plain murder — part of the Nazi killing machine that killed 6 million people.

When the Americans marched in, they discovered huge piles of dead bodies and starving survivors. Gen. Eisenhower ordered Germans from the nearby town to tour the camp, so they could see what was being done in their name. He ordered American troops to tour the camp, so they could see the evil they were fighting against. He invited congressmen and journalists to bear witness. And he ordered that photographs and films be made. Explaining his actions, Eisenhower said that he wanted to produce "firsthand evidence of these things, if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to propaganda."

I saw some of those very images at Yad Vashem, and they never leave you. And those images just hint at the stories that survivors of the Shoah carried with them. Like Eisenhower, each of us bears witness to anyone and everyone who would deny these unspeakable crimes, or ever speak of repeating them. We must mean what we say when we speak the words "never again."

It was just a few years after the liberation of the camps that David Ben-Gurion declared the founding of the Jewish State of Israel. We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security.

Not when there are still voices that deny the Holocaust. Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel's destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don't even acknowledge Israel's existence, and government-funded textbooks filled with hatred toward Jews. Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot, and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school.

I have long understood Israel's quest for peace and need for security. But never more so than during my travels there two years ago. Flying in an [Israeli Defense Forces] helicopter, I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line. I talked to people who wanted nothing more simple, or elusive, than a secure future for their children.

I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share, because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party. But part of our commitment must be speaking up when Israel's security is at risk, and I don't think any of us can be satisfied that America's recent foreign policy has made Israel more secure.

Hamas now controls Gaza. Hezbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran — which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq — is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. Iraq is unstable, and al-Qaida has stepped up its recruitment. Israel's quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people. And America is more isolated in the region, reducing our strength and jeopardizing Israel's safety.

The question is how to move forward. There are those who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed. And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East's only democracy for the region's extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.

Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.

That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.

Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand that real security can only come through lasting peace. And that is why we — as friends of Israel — must resolve to do all we can to help Israel and its neighbors to achieve it. Because a secure, lasting peace is in Israel's national interest. It is in America's national interest. And it is in the interest of the Palestinian people and the Arab world. As president, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency. I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my administration.

The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections. But this administration pressed ahead, and the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel.

The Palestinian people must understand that progress will not come through the false prophets of extremism or the corrupt use of foreign aid. The United States and the international community must stand by Palestinians who are committed to cracking down on terror and carrying the burden of peacemaking. I will strongly urge Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel, and to fulfill their responsibility to pressure extremists and provide real support for President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps — consistent with its security — to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements — as it agreed to with the Bush administration at Annapolis.

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

I have no illusions that this will be easy. It will require difficult decisions on both sides. But Israel is strong enough to achieve peace, if it has partners who are committed to the goal. Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace, and we must strengthen their hand. The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process — not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence. That's what I commit to do as president of the United States.

The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don't end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat.

I also believe that the United States has a responsibility to support Israel's efforts to renew peace talks with the Syrians. We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel's leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests. As president, I will do whatever I can to help Israel succeed in these negotiations. And success will require the full enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1701 in Lebanon, and a stop to Syria's support for terror. It is time for this reckless behavior to come to an end.

There is no greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and stability of the region — than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in our commitment to Israel's security. So while I don't want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

But just as we are cleareyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today's policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran — the hard-liners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

I respect Sen. McCain, and look forward to a substantive debate with him these next five months. But on this point, we have differed, and we will differ. Sen. McCain refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy that he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy but offers only an alternate reality — one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.

Sen. McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran — it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq's leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future.

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a cleareyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing — if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States.

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

My presidency will strengthen our hand as we restore our standing. Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear — to the people of Iran, and to the world — that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime — from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.

I was interested to see Sen. McCain propose divestment as a source of leverage — not the bigoted divestment that has sought to punish Israeli scientists and academics, but divestment targeted at the Iranian regime. It's a good concept, but not a new one. I introduced legislation over a year ago that would encourage states and the private sector to divest from companies that do business in Iran. This bill has bipartisan support, but for reasons that I'll let him explain, Sen. McCain never signed on. Meanwhile, an anonymous senator is blocking the bill. It is time to pass this into law so that we can tighten the squeeze on the Iranian regime. We should also pursue other unilateral sanctions that target Iranian banks and assets.

And we must free ourselves from the tyranny of oil. The price of a barrel of oil is one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Petrodollars pay for weapons that kill American troops and Israeli citizens. And the Bush administration's policies have driven up the price of oil, while its energy policy has made us more dependent on foreign oil and gas. It's time for the United States to take real steps to end our addiction to oil. And we can join with Israel, building on last year's U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act, to deepen our partnership in developing alternative sources of energy by increasing scientific collaboration and joint research and development. The surest way to increase our leverage in the long term is to stop bankrolling the Iranian regime.

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

That is the change we need in our foreign policy. Change that restores American power and influence. Change accompanied by a pledge that I will make known to allies and adversaries alike: that America maintains an unwavering friendship with Israel, and an unshakeable commitment to its security.

As members of AIPAC, you have helped advance this bipartisan consensus to support and defend our ally Israel. And I am sure that today on Capitol Hill you will be meeting with members of Congress and spreading the word. But we are here because of more than policy. We are here because the values we hold dear are deeply embedded in the story of Israel.

Just look at what Israel has accomplished in 60 years. From decades of struggle and the terrible wake of the Holocaust, a nation was forged to provide a home for Jews from all corners of the world — from Syria to Ethiopia to the Soviet Union. In the face of constant threats, Israel has triumphed. In the face of constant peril, Israel has prospered. In a state of constant insecurity, Israel has maintained a vibrant and open discourse, and a resilient commitment to the rule of law.

As any Israeli will tell you, Israel is not a perfect place, but like the United States it sets an example for all when it seeks a more perfect future. These same qualities can be found among American Jews. It is why so many Jewish Americans have stood by Israel, while advancing the American story. Because there is a commitment embedded in the Jewish faith and tradition: to freedom and fairness; to social justice and equal opportunity. To tikkun olam — the obligation to repair this world.

I will never forget that I would not be standing here today if it weren't for that commitment. In the great social movements in our country's history, Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together. And Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man — James Chaney — on behalf of freedom and equality.

Their legacy is our inheritance. We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred in all of its forms. Together, we can renew our commitment to justice. Together, we can join our voices together, and in doing so make even the mightiest of walls fall down.

That work must include our shared commitment to Israel. You and I know that we must do more than stand still. Now is the time to be vigilant in facing down every foe, just as we move forward in seeking a future of peace for the children of Israel, and for all children. Now is the time to stand by Israel as it writes the next chapter in its extraordinary journey. Now is the time to join together in the work of repairing this world.

© 2008 NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432 [no comments; comments closed]


--


in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (any future other) following, see also (linked in):

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=9804438 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=12186433 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=14525268 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=14728293 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=15786366 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=27225877 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=28054114 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69593348 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70425619 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71671825 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72827968 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=30361289 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=30901964 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33976370 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=34514807 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39512678 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39513133 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47845158 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=54119408 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=54119571 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59222965 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59475662 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59476048 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59646618 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59875219 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61131925 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91230550 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=63834318 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64150008 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66435860 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67654311 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71169968 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73917183 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78351009 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=81038409 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=82327173 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83345977 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=94374620 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=94499157 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=85428137 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93239998 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=87811013 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91387099 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=92493327 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93662646 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95111389 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95081519 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95562636 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95950088 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=97217659 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=98526103 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=99049589 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=100785304 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=102955971 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=103453050 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=103547882 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=104254370 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=105687086 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=105994697 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=106061749 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=106148792 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=106305226 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=107030537 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=110303045 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=110456218 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=110400989 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=110748315 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=110921518 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=110949228 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111300615 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111381291 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111457982 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111559414 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111566802 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111713424 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=112377889 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=112466552 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=112380387 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=112583247 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=112586645 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111399700 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114788533 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114817004 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114918744 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114932801 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114970427 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114971861 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=114995901 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115041646 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115158666 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115158703 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115301778 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115334519 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115341229 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115343094 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115347789 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115363400 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115369699 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115371408 and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115404834 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115376148 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115377930 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115383052 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115401187 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115404572 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115409124 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115415137 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115142239 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115351552 and preceding and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115439747 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115467775 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115471045 and preceding (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115471723 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115471896 (and any future following)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115487080 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115487324 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115487402 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=115487496 and preceding (and any future following)