From Irania press...

"US President Barack Obama is “under pressure” to reach an agreement with Iran over Tehran’s nuclear energy program, an American foreign policy analyst says.

“It’s quite obvious to everyone that Mr. Obama would like to have a deal with Iran,” said James George Jatras, a former US diplomat and adviser to the Senate Republican leadership.

“He’s under a lot of pressure to try to bring negotiations to a conclusion that he can defend domestically,” Jatras said Sunday during a phone interview with Press TV.

“I doubt very much that the United States would walk away from the negotiations because this is such a strong priority for Mr. Obama who otherwise has very little to show in the realm of foreign policy,” he added."

PressTV-'Obama wants nuclear pact with Iran'


GENEVA (AP) — The United States and Iran are working on a two-phase deal that clamps down on Tehran's nuclear program for at least a decade before providing it leeway over the remainder of the agreement to slowly ramp up activities that could be used to make weapons.


Phased US-Iran nuclear deal taking shape

"Good or bad Iran nuke deal? Israel vs. the US administration

"GOOD DEAL OR BAD DEAL?

Relying on an inspection regime seems dicey considering the history of nations the world over — including Israel itself — acquiring nuclear weapons through deceit. And an Iranian nuclear weapon would further tilt the already unstable Middle Eastern strategic equation.

"It is one thing to try and verify that they are not bypassing you and it is another to verify that there is nothing to verify," Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz told The Associated Press.

But defenders of such a deal say that such an evasion would be very difficult. Daryl Kimball of the Washington-based Arms Control Association says tough monitoring would result in "enough time to detect and disrupt" any Iranian effort to work on a bomb.

In any case, the option of pressing Iran toward total dismantling seems unrealistic. In a world where the U.S. has no stomach for another Middle Eastern military involvement, and Russia and China are unlikely to join a total embargo on the Iranian economy, proponents of the possible deal see it as the least bad option.

WHAT'S THE MAIN DISPUTE AND WHO'S AHEAD?

With only a few weeks left until the March deadline, Iran — which insists it does not want nuclear arms — seems to be ahead in pushing the other side to compromise.

The main dispute is over the size and potency of Iran's uranium enrichment program, which can make both reactor fuel and the fissile core of a weapon. The U.S., along with Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, came to the table demanding that Tehran dismantle 80 to 90 percent of the nearly 10,000 centrifuges now turning out enriched uranium along with all of the 8,000 or so other machines set up but not working.

But faced with Iranian resistance, diplomats now say the U.S. is prepared to accept 4,500 operating centrifuges — perhaps more — if Tehran agrees to constraints on their efficiency.

Washington has also compromised on initial demands that constraints on Iran's nuclear program last 20 years or more. Diplomats say it is now ready to accept 10 to 12 years.

WILL A DEAL LEAVE IRAN ON THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS THESHOLD?

The U.S. administration continues to insist that it will not accept any deal that does not extend the time Iran could make a nuclear bomb to at least a year.

Kimball, of the Arms Control Association, says that there is no alternative to the U.S. approach. Hopes that Iran will substantially bend on centrifuge numbers after more than a decade of resistance are "a dangerous illusion," he says.

Olli Heinonen, a former head of the Iran file at the U.N. nuclear agency, says the mix could work, but only if Iran agrees to run no more than 2,000 to 4,000 centrifuges — something Tehran says it will not accept.

"The killer is the number of centrifuges," says Heinonen.

David Albright of the Institute for Science and Security in Washington notes that — even if such a deal is sealed — it becomes difficult to monitor because of all the moving parts.

"The more elements you add, the more Iran can break individually," he says.

And he says that even destroying all of Iran's centrifuges, as Israel demands, would probably leave Tehran in a position to rebuild enough to make a bomb within two years in a "crash program" applying decades of expertise."

Good or bad Iran nuke deal? Israel vs. the US administration

I am sure that Obama's direction to the negotiators to be no different than he gave when advising his lemmings in congress to pass an affordable health care law......just pass SOMETHING.

And then have the likes of the Pelosi types to then say we have to pass it to see what is in it.

The Iran settlement is the same. He just wants to puff up and wordsmith what he did that no other POTUS has been able to do....NOT MATTERING ONE BIT WHAT IS GIVEN UP in the process.

Pure political game playing.

That when done will be like the ACA .....he will be out of office when the feces hits the oscillator.

Here again I would like his staunch supporters (the no matter what folks) to describe why this is a good thing.

And like the ACA the majority of this country is against....which also does not matter.

Representaitives of we the people....

"Russia has reportedly offered to sell Iran powerful and advanced anti-aircraft missiles in a deal that could have an impact on nuclear talks approaching a deadline next month.

Sergei Chemezov, head of the Russian state arms conglomerate Rostec, was quoted by the Tass news agency as saying the firm was willing to supply Tehran with Antey-2500 missiles with the capability of intercepting and destroying ballistic and cruise missiles as well as aircraft. Chemezov said Tehran was considering the offer.

If the sale goes ahead, the missiles are likely to represent a significant defence against any future air strikes aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities, and so could in theory diminish pressure on Iran to come to an agreement in nuclear negotiations."

Russia offers to sell anti-aircraft missiles to Iran | World news | The Guardian

"The planned sale of a less sophisticated and shorter-range surface-to-air missile system, the S-300, was cancelled in 2010 after concerted Israeli and US pressure on Moscow. But since then Vladimir Putin has returned to the presidency in place of the more conciliatory Dmitry Medvedev, Moscow’s relations with the west have dramatically worsened over the Ukraine conflict, and the sharp drop in the oil price together with western sanctions have left Moscow increasingly desperate to find new sources of foreign currency. Russian arms sales last year generated $13bn (£8.4bn)."

"(Reuters) - At least $1 billion in cash has been smuggled into Iran as it seeks to avoid Western sanctions, a bigger figure than previously reported, Iranian officials and Western intelligence and diplomatic sources say.

Sanctions imposed by the West over Iran's nuclear program have shut Tehran out of the global banking system, making it hard to obtain the U.S. dollars it needs for international transactions.

In December, the U.S. Treasury said the Iranian government had obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in bank notes using front companies.

Interviews by Reuters with Iranian officials and Western diplomatic and intelligence sources show a bigger smuggling effort by Tehran, as well as the routes and methods used -- details not previously reported. These sources said at least $1 billion in U.S. bank notes had been smuggled into Iran in recent months, with the Iranian central bank playing an important role.

Exclusive: Iran smuggles in $1 billion of bank notes to skirt sanctions - sources | Reuters

The confidence builds

White House Lowers Bar for Iran Nuke Deal


"For anyone hoping a nuclear deal with Iran might stop the Tehran government from destabilizing the Middle East or free its political prisoners, the Obama administration has some bad news: It's just an arms control agreement.

As details of a proposed pact leaked out of the Geneva talks Monday, administration officials told us they will ask the world to judge any final nuclear agreement on the technical aspects only, not on whether the deal will spur Iranian reform.

"A similar line of thinking was promoted in the 1990s, when the U.S. struck a deal with North Korea to put severe limits on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Of course, Pyongyang only increased its internal repression and nuclear ambitions."

White House Lowers Bar*for Iran Nuke Deal - Bloomberg View

Amateur hens in in amongst the practiced wolves!

When one negotiates as the USA currently is they are in a position of weakness. They are letting a time table/political agenda dictate the pace at which the process needs to comply.

Those in a position of strength know all they have to do is dig in their heels and take their time and let the desperation of the clock dictate the need to CAVE!!!

This administrations priority for having an agreement in a specific time frame far outweighs the content of the agreement or security of the USA and it's allies.

"Arab governments have been privately expressing their concern to Washington about the emerging terms of a potential nuclear deal with Iran, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday, citing Arab and U.S. officials involved in the deliberations.

According to the report, the direction of American diplomacy with Tehran has added fuel to fears in some Arab states of a nuclear-arms race in the region, as well as reviving talk about possibly extending a U.S. nuclear umbrella to Middle East allies to counter any Iranian threat.

The major Sunni states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, have said that a final agreement could allow Shiite-dominated Iran, their regional rival, to keep the technologies needed to produce nuclear weapons, according to these officials, while removing many of the sanctions that have crippled its economy in recent years.

Arab officials said a deal would likely drive Saudi Arabia, for one, to try to quickly match Iran’s nuclear capabilities, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“At this stage, we prefer a collapse of the diplomatic process to a bad deal,” an Arab official who has discussed Iran with the Obama administration and Saudi Arabia in recent weeks told the newspaper.

The Obama administration initially said its policy was to completely dismantle Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure as a means to protect Washington’s Mideast allies.

Now, however, officials say it is no longer plausible to eliminate all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, suggesting that any final deal would leave some nuclear capability in place.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Arab officials have increasingly spoken about a possible nuclear arms race in the Mideast as the negotiations have continued for 18 months, having been extended twice.

Arab States Worried About Iran Deal - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva

From Alan Dershowitz.....


"As a liberal Democrat who twice campaigned for President Barack Obama , I am appalled that some Democratic members of Congress are planning to boycott the speech of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 3 to a joint session of Congress. At bottom, this controversy is not mainly about protocol and politics—it is about the constitutional system of checks and balances and the separation of powers.

Under the Constitution, the executive and legislative branches share responsibility for making and implementing important foreign-policy decisions. Congress has a critical role to play in scrutinizing the decisions of the president when these decisions involve national security, relationships with allies and the threat of nuclear proliferation.

Congress has every right to invite, even over the president’s strong objection, any world leader or international expert who can assist its members in formulating appropriate responses to the current deal being considered with Iran regarding its nuclear-weapons program. Indeed, it is the responsibility of every member of Congress to listen to Prime Minister Netanyahu, who probably knows more about this issue than any world leader, because it threatens the very existence of the nation state of the Jewish people.

Congress has the right to disagree with the prime minister, but the idea that some members of Congress will not give him the courtesy of listening violates protocol and basic decency to a far greater extent than anything Mr. Netanyahu is accused of doing for having accepted an invitation from Congress.

Recall that President Obama sent British Prime Minister David Cameron to lobby Congress with phone calls last month against conditionally imposing new sanctions on Iran if the deal were to fail. What the president objects to is not that Mr. Netanyahu will speak to Congress, but the content of what he intends to say. This constitutes a direct intrusion on the power of Congress and on the constitutional separation of powers

Not only should all members of Congress attend Mr. Netanyahu’s speech, but President Obama—as a constitutional scholar—should urge members of Congress to do their constitutional duty of listening to opposing views in order to check and balance the policies of the administration."

Alan M. Dershowitz: The Appalling Talk of Boycotting Netanyahu - WSJ

"One big question coming out of the Munich security conference this weekend is whether Iran and the U.S. can strike a nuclear deal before the next, and perhaps final, deadline in March. But the better question may be what happens if they succeed—what happens if they sign an accord close to the parameters of the talks as we now know them? The Obama Administration may be underwriting a new era of global nuclear proliferation.

That’s the question Henry Kissinger diplomatically raised in recent testimony to the Senate that deserves far more public attention. The former Secretary of State is the dean of American strategists who negotiated nuclear pacts with the Soviets in the 1970s. This gives his views on the Iran talks particular relevance as President Obama drives to an accord that he hopes will be the capstone of his second term".

Kissinger on Iran - WSJ

"Nuclear talks with Iran began as an international effort, buttressed by six U.N. resolutions, to deny Iran the capability to develop a military nuclear option. They are now an essentially bilateral negotiation over the scope of that capability through an agreement that sets a hypothetical limit of one year on an assumed breakout. The impact of this approach will be to move from preventing proliferation to managing it.” (The italics are Mr. Kissinger’s.)

Mull that one over. Mr. Kissinger always speaks with care not to undermine a U.S. Administration, and the same is true here. But he is clearly worried about how far the U.S. has moved from its original negotiating position that Iran cannot enrich uranium or maintain thousands of centrifuges. And he is concerned that these concessions will lead the world to perceive that such a deal would put Iran on the cusp of being a nuclear power."

"JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday rebuffed criticism in Washington of his plans to speak in Congress, accusing world powers of forsaking a pledge to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"I respect the White House and the President of the United States but on such a fateful matter, that can determine whether or not we survive, I must do everything to prevent such a great danger for Israel," Netanyahu said in a speech.

He said world powers had pledged to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, adding that "from the agreement coming together it appears they have given up on this commitment".

Netanyahu accuses West of forsaking non-nuclear Iran pledge

IF NOTHING ELSE....IMPROBABLE TIMING AND COMMITTMENT TO PEACE TALKS !!!!

"Iran’s armed forces launched a speedboat attack on a giant model of a US aircraft carrier on Wednesday as the Revolutionary Guard staged military exercises in the Gulf.
The aim of the drill was to practise how to sink an American carrier, at least two of which patrol the Gulf at any given time.

Exercise “Great Prophet Nine” showed how the naval wing of the Revolutionary Guard would launch a “swarm” attack, seeking to overwhelm the carrier’s defences by dispatching numerous speedboats to converge on the vessel from all directions.
“American aircraft carriers are very big ammunition depots housing a lot of missiles, rockets, torpedoes and everything else," said Admiral Ali Fadavi, the naval commander of the Revolutionary Guard. He told state television that hitting a carrier with just one missile could trigger a “large secondary explosion”.

Video: Iran attacks replica US ship in military drill - Telegraph

It is just puzzling how supposedly the top intelligentsia of our nation continue this going back and forth when it has been clear going way back that neither Iran or Palestine have ever negotiated in good faith. Nothing is going to change Palestine or Iran's positions. Obama either has a hidden agenda or he just can't negotiate and since he was trained as a lawyer I doubt its the latter.

Obama is favorably inclined toward Islam and is not enamored with Israel.

The time for negotiations has long past and the US needs to move in a different direction. but to allow these two countries to string us along only advantages their agenda.

Oh yes Iran can be trusted. See the video in today's news about their attack boats practicing on a mock aircraft carrier how to take one down.

And they need this practice/ability because.......?
Same folks are pledging they just want nuclear stuff for peaceful purposes.

Our amateurs will be duped (again) creating more risk for USA security in the name of getting an agreement done.

Originally Posted by Guest

Oh yes Iran can be trusted. See the video in today's news about their attack boats practicing on a mock aircraft carrier how to take one down.

And they need this practice/ability because.......?
Same folks are pledging they just want nuclear stuff for peaceful purposes.

Our amateurs will be duped (again) creating more risk for USA security in the name of getting an agreement done.

I saw the photo of the Iranian mock attack on a US aircraft carrier ... turned it into a smoldering hulk. It was sad and bothersome to watch, much like watching what Obama's enlightened ineptness is doing to our Country daily

I think a lot of Obama enthusiasts truly have no clue to the consequences for America after Obama and Kerry incompetence allows Iran to develop nukes.