Aff

Politics Thumpers
Obama has no political capital Clinton sabotage Mandel 13
Is Obama an Obstacle to Clintons 16 Plans? Seth Mandel 12.02.2013 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/12/02/is-obama-an-obstacle-to-clintons-16plans/ Politico provides a late entry into the understatement-of-the-year competition for straight news, reporting that Hillary Clinton is not actively trying to suppress the speculation that she will run for president in 2016. Its true enough, but it might be more accurate to note that she is throwing brushback pitches even at non-candidates who have insisted theyre not considering running but have supporters who want them to run, like Elizabeth Warren. In other words, she is pretty much already running. As Jonathan Martin and Amy Chozick reported over the weekend, the Clintons are working to repair ties with black voters after the 2008 primary competition against Barack Obama. (Though the press would have you think otherwise, it was the Clinton duo, not John McCain, who tried to use Obamas race against him that year.) In their story, Martin and Chozickwho keep finding genuinely interesting angles to the looming 2016 racewrite that the Clintons see black voters as their hedge against any other challenger (though they seem to have Warren in mind) since they wont be running against Obama again: This task has taken on new urgency given the Democratic Partys push to the left, away from the centrist politics with which the Clintons are identified. Strong support from black voters could serve as a bulwark for Mrs. Clinton against a liberal primary challenge should she decide to run for president in 2016. It would be difficult for a progressive candidate, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, to rise if the former first lady takes back the black voters she lost to Mr. Obama and retains the blue-collar white voters who flocked to her. Because she is already off to the races, she has a challenge: she was a poor secretary of state, and though her term recently ended the only thing many people can remember about it is that aside from her disastrous handling of Benghazi there was nothing worth remembering. And Clinton seems to be well aware of this. In anther Chozick dispatch headlined Clinton Seeks State Dept. Legacy Beyond That of Globe-Trotter, Clintons supporters fret that the public will correctly remember that all she really did was fly around the world on the taxpayers dime: The struggle to define Mrs. Clintons accomplishments at the State Department has intensified in recent days as Mr. Kerry and his latest assertive diplomatic effort a successful push for an agreement with Iran that would temporarily curb the countrys nuclear program have drawn tough comparisons with Mrs. Clinton. Freed of any presidential ambitions, Mr. Kerry appears willing to wade into political minefields. He has taken whirlwind trips to the Middle East, revived peace talks with Israel and Palestine and struck a deal with Russia to remove chemical weapons from Syria. All the activity seemed to provide fresh evidence for those who viewed Mrs. Clintons tenure as overly cautious. In contrast, even when members of Mrs. Clintons own party describe her achievements, they tend to point to a lot of miles traveled (956,733 to be exact). The best part of that story is when Chozick paraphrases Clintonites as follows: What about her 13 trips to Libya in 2011 to build the coalition that led to the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, they ask. If Hillary Clinton really wants to talk about her legacy in Libya, Im guessing her opponents will be more than happy to oblige. But all thiscontrasting her record with the sitting secretary of state, taking credit for current administration

successes while deflecting blame for the many failures, trying to rebuild ties with Obamas voter basebrings up another rather obvious obstacle: were less than a year into Obamas second term. Some toes, then, are being stepped on, as Politico reports today: Obama needs his partys attention devoted to helping him salvage the final three years of his administration. But Democratic donors and activists say the growing anticipation around a possible Clinton administration three years out could accelerate the presidents arrival at lame duck status. The more Obama is viewed as a has-been, they say, the harder it could be for him to rally the party to fight for his agenda. This is quite a reasonable concern from Obamas side of the issue. He is currently at something of a low point in his presidency, with his signature achievement cratering amid revelations that hes been purposefully misleading the public on his intention to kick them off their health insurance plans, among other false promises and disastrous effects of ObamaCare. Obama may or may not be able to regain enough political capital to right the ship, but if the Democrats start treating someone with political star power as the new leader of the party, it wont give the president the space and credibility he needs to rally his administration. And even worse for Obama, Clinton has some incentive to portray him as a failure. ObamaCare has his name on it, and she was already out of the Senate by the time it was voted on. And distracting the political world from the Obama White House means neutralizing the one advantage Vice President Joe Biden would have over Clinton: incumbency. In truth, she will also lose out if ObamaCare continues to be a total disaster, because it will further erode the publics trust in the Democratic Partys big-government world view. But a lame-duck presidency gives her a head start. A resuscitated presidency takes the air out of her tires for a few more years.

No political capital - Obamacare Chowdhry 13

With Obamacare 2.0, Obama aims to hit reset on troubled second term AFFAN CHOWDHRY; The Globe and Mail; Dec. 03 2013 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/withobamacare-20-obama-aims-to-hit-reset-on-troubled-second-term/article15738004/ President Barack Obama is trying to hit the reset button on a troubled second term that has followed a botched rollout of his signature health-care law and resulted in doubts over his competence while receiving the worst approval ratings since he won the White House in 2008. The president is launching a three-week push to raise interest and sign ups in health-care plans through the government website, ahead of a December 23rd deadline by which time people must sign up in order to see their coverage take effect on January 1st, 2014. Mr. Obama has apologized profusely and promised to fix the website that repeatedly crashed when it was launched on October 1st, as ordinary Americans tried to purchase health insurance on the government-run site that serves as an online health insurance shopping market. Today at a White House event (2:30 p.m. ET), Mr. Obama will put names and faces to ordinary Americans who have seen lower monthly premiums and others who have signed up for health care for the first time in some cases because Mr. Obamas law has made it illegal to deny coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition. But Mr. Obamas biggest challenge is how to restore confidence in his administration after fumbling the single-most important initiative of his presidency a law that has struggled to win the approval of a majority of Americans and cost Mr. Obama significant political capital.

Obama is shifting to foreign policy this thumps the link Hammond 13

Iranian breakthrough and Obama foreign policy success Andrew Hammond; former US Analyst at Oxford Analytica, and a Special Adviser in the Government of Tony Blair; November 28, 2013 http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/11/28/iranian-breakthrough-and-obama-foreign-policysuccess/ The landmark Iranian deal, combined with continued uncertainty in Syria and Egypt, has refocused Washingtons attention towards the Middle East in a manner unanticipated by Obama only a few months ago. In addition, the administration has spent significant political capital resuming Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Intensified US focus on the Middle East has accentuated a shift, common to many recent re-elected presidents, of increased focus on foreign policy in second terms. In part, this reflects the fact that presidents often see foreign policy as key to the legacy they wish to build. For instance, after the 2001 terrorist attacks, George W. Bush sought to spread his freedom agenda across the Middle East. Bill Clinton also devoted significant time to trying to secure an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. As important as the Iranian nuclear agreement might prove to be, the Middle East is only one of two regions in which Obama is looking for legacy. Since he was elected in 2008, Asia in general, and China in particular, has assumed greater importance in US policy. To this end, Obama is seeking to continue the so-called pivot towards Asia-Pacific through landmark initiatives like the TransPacific Partnership. Key threats, however, remain on the horizon to securing this re-orientation. These include a dramatic, sustained escalation of tension in the Middle East in coming months; and/or the remaining possibility of further devastating terrorist attacks on the US homeland. As well as legacy-building, the likelihood of Obama concentrating more on foreign policy also reflects domestic US politics. In particular, the intense polarisation and gridlock of Washington. Since re-election, Obama has achieved little domestic policy success. His gun control bill was defeated, immigration reform faces significant opposition in the Republicancontrolled House of Representatives, and the prospect of a long-term budgetary grand bargain with Congress looks unlikely. Moreover, implementation of his landmark healthcare initiative has been botched. Many re-elected presidents in the post-war era have, like Obama, found it difficult to acquire domestic policy momentum. In part, this is because the party of reelected presidents, as with the Democrats now, often hold a weaker position in Congress. Thus Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, Richard Nixon in 1972, and Clinton in 1996 were all re-elected alongside Congresses where both the House and Senate were controlled by their partisan opponents. Another factor encouraging enhanced focus on foreign policy, which Congress has less latitude over than domestic policy, in second terms is the fact that re-elected presidents have often been impacted by scandals in recent decades. For instance, Watergate ended the Nixon administration in 1974, and the Lewinsky scandal led to Clinton being impeached. Since Obamas re-election, a series of domestic problems have hit the administration. These include revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted some conservative groups for special scrutiny; and the Department of Justices secret subpoenaing of private phone records of several Associated Press reporters and editors in the wake of a terrorist plot leak. Even if Obama escapes further significant problems, he will not be able to avoid the lame-duck factor. That is, as a president cannot seek more than two terms, domestic political focus will refocus elsewhere, particularly after the November 2014 congressional ballots when the 2016 presidential election campaign kicks into gear. Taken overall, the Iranian breakthrough and wider events in the Middle East are therefore likely to accentuate Obamas focus on foreign policy in his remaining period of office as he seeks a presidential legacy. And, this shift is only likely to be reinforced if, as anticipated, the US economic recovery continues to build up steam in 2014.

Multiple issues thump the link Feldmann 13

Is Obama already a lame-duck president? (+video) Linda Feldmann; Staff writer; December 2, 2013 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/1202/Is-Obama-already-a-lame-duckpresident-video WASHINGTON The L word as in lame, followed by duck is already creeping into the conversation on President Obamas second-term woes. The disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov, followed by the flap over canceled policies and other effects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), means Mr. Obama will spend the rest of his presidency trying to prove the law can or will work. That distracts from efforts toward new accomplishments, be it immigration reform or a long-term budget deal or climate change. The Obamacare mess has also sent the presidents job approval ratings and personal popularity south, depleting his political capital and harming Democrats prospects in the 2014 midterms particularly in the Senate, where Democratic control is in jeopardy. And in perhaps the final sign that Obama may be sliding toward lame-duckery, political media have been obsessed by the 2016 presidential race almost since the moment Obama was reelected. Hillary Rodham Clinton practically has the Democratic nomination locked up without even announcing, if the prevailing narrative is to be believed. And New Jerseys voluble Republican governor, Chris Christie, has sent clear signals hes running, setting up a delicious potential matchup. That last point might say more about the media than about presidential politics, though in the modern era, its not too soon to be strategizing about the next race. Still, the early rumblings of 2016 are a sideshow compared with the present challenge of being president. And for Obama, analysts say, despite the rough rollout of the ACA, theres plenty of juice left in his presidency especially with more than three years to go. It has to do with the inherent powers of the presidency, says Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Between now and the 20th of January 2017, there will be many opportunities for him to do things, even if Congress doesnt cooperate. Obama has shown clear willingness to use executive power to effect policy without Congress. Examples include changes to the ACA, actions on firearms, limits on greenhouse gases, changes to IRS rules that affect political action committees, and deferring deportation of young illegal immigrants. The president has held back on taking other executive actions, despite pressure from activists, especially on gay rights and broader immigration reform. That hesitancy likely signals a desire to keep working with Congress on those matters, bringing more public buy-in and the ability to institute more sweeping reform. The White House is putting out the word that Obama is keeping his powder dry on issues like comprehensive immigration reform and expanded background checks on guns, two initiatives that ran aground in Congress this year. The president takes a long view of things, White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri told MSNBC on Monday. We made a lot of progress in this past year on those issues, and well continue to push it as long as it takes through the rest of the presidency. Still, theres no sign that Congresss intense polarization is about to change anytime soon. Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reids recent deployment of the nuclear option, changing the rules of confirmation, should make it easier for Obama to seat many new judges and executive branch nominees, though the move infuriated Republicans and could lead to other blocking tactics. What second-term Obama is experiencing isnt all that different from what many other presidents have faced after starting their second four years. They do run into second-term blues, says Jim Guth, a political scientist at Furman University in South Carolina. Of course, the question is whether the president can recover. Some do and some dont. Obamas predecessor, George W. Bush, didnt. Soon after taking his second oath of office, the

public went sour on the Iraq War and Mr. Bushs job approval tanked. His big second-term initiative, introducing private accounts into Social Security, never got off the ground. Hurricane Katrina sealed Bushs fate. In contrast, President Reagan was able to bring his public support back up after the Iran-Contra scandal; in his final year in office, his job approval averaged 53 percent, according to Gallup. Obamas current average of major polls is 40 percent. One of the things Reagan had going for him was that the economy was doing better, says Mr. Guth. Obama may have that working for him as well. In other words, Its the economy, stupid Democratic strategist James Carvilles rallying cry in the 1992 election still applies. And what has come to be a scandal of incompetence with the botched rollout of HealthCare.gov will, in time, start to feel like old news, assuming the sites performance continues to improve. Perhaps the biggest question hanging over Obamas presidency is how the rest of the ACA will unfold and how it will affect the existing health-care system. Protecting the increasingly unpopular ACA may end up being the biggest project of his second term. But in the meantime, Obama is also making headway on the longstanding issue of Irans nuclear program, with an interim accord that freezes key aspects in exchange for temporary relief on some economic sanctions. If that deal ends up being productive, it would prove the maxim that second-term presidents look overseas for their successes .

Filibuster rules thump the link Kane AND Branigin 13

Reid, Democrats trigger nuclear option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees Paul Kane and William Branigin, November 21, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senatepoised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-ofprecedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html The partisan battles that have paralyzed Washington in recent years took a historic turn Thursday, as Senate Democrats eliminated filibusters for most presidential nominations, severely curtailing the political leverage of the Republican minority in the Senate and assuring an escalation of partisan warfare. Saying that enough is enough, President Obama welcomed the end of what he called the abuse of the Senates advise and consent function, which he said had turned into a reckless and relentless tool to grind the gears of government to a halt. The dispute has been brewing for years between Democrats and Republicans. While neither party has been blameless for these tactics, Obama said in a statement to reporters at the White House, todays pattern of obstruction ... just isnt normal; its not what our founders envisioned. He cited filibusters against executive branch appointments and judicial nominees on grounds that he said were based simply on opposition to the policies that the American people voted for in the last election. This isnt obstruction on substance, on qualifications, he said. Its just to gum up the works. The rule change means that federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has long been required to end debate and proceed to an up-or-down majority vote to confirm or reject the nomination. The change does not apply to Supreme Court nominations. But the vote, mostly along party lines, dramatically alters the landscape for both Democratic and Republican presidents, especially if their own political party holds a majority of, but fewer than 60, Senate seats. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) accused Democrats of a power grab and suggested that they will regret their decision if Republicans regain control of the chamber. Were not interested in having a gun put to our head any longer, McConnell said. Some of us have been around here long enough to know that the shoe is sometimes on the other foot. McConnell then addressed

Democrats directly, saying: You may regret this a lot sooner than you think. He added later: The solution to this problem is at the ballot box. We look forward to having a great election in 2014. In his remarks at the White House, Obama called the use of the filibuster over the five years of his tenure an unprecedented pattern of obstruction in Congress thats prevented too much of the American peoples business from getting done. Saying that the tactic has blocked bipartisan compromises, prevented qualified people from filling critical posts and stymied legislation to create jobs and limit gun violence, he said: Its harmed our economy, and its been harmful to our democracy. A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to refight the result of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations, we cant let it become normal, Obama said. So the vote today I think is an indication that a majority of senators believe, as I believe, that enough is enough, he said. He added: The American people deserve better than politicians who run for election telling them how terrible government is, and then devoting their time in elected office to trying to make government not work as often as possible. He did not take any questions after his remarks in the White House briefing room. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned Democrats against the rule change on Wednesday, saying that if the GOP reclaimed the Senate majority, Republicans would further alter the rules to include Supreme Court nominees, so that Democrats could not filibuster a Republican pick for the nations highest court. Reacting to Republican criticism after the vote, Sen. Tom Harkin (DIowa) called the move a huge step in the right direction and denied that it somehow broke Senate rules. The Senate broke no rules, he said in a floor speech. We simply used the rules to make sure that the Senate could function and that we could get our nominees through. The vote to change the rule passed 52 to 48. Three Democrats Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) joined 45 Republicans in opposing the measure. Levin is a longtime senator who remembers well the years when Democratic filibusters blocked nominees of Republican presidents; Manchin and Pryor come from Republican-leaning states. Levin denounced both Republicans and Democrats in a floor speech after the vote. He said GOP obstruction of Obamas nominees has been irresponsible and partisan gamesmanship. Republicans are contributing to the destruction of an important check against majority overreach, he said. But Democrats have used the filibuster in the past, and changing the rules by fiat means that there are no rules in the Senate any longer, he said. Today we are once again moving down a destructive path, Levin said. Infuriated by what he sees as a pattern of obstruction and delay over Obamas nominees, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) triggered the so-called nuclear option by proposing a motion to reconsider the nomination of Patricia Millett, one of the judicial nominees whom Republicans recently blocked by a filibuster, to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Senate voted 57 to 40, with three abstentions, to reconsider Milletts nomination. Several procedural votes followed. The Senate parliamentarian, speaking through Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the chambers president pro tempore, then ruled that 60 votes are needed to cut off a filibuster and move to a final confirmation vote. Reid appealed that ruling, asking senators to decide whether it should stand. The Democratic victory paved the way for the confirmation of Millett and two other nominees to the D.C. appeals court. All have recently been stymied by GOP filibusters, amid Republican assertions that the critical appellate court simply did not need any more judges.

Farm Bill
Wont pass; Key Leaders Berman 13
(12/5/13) http://thehill.com/homenews/house/192188-boehner-no-budget-farm-bill-deals-yet Russell Berman is a congressional reporter for the hill Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday downplayed the likelihood of imminent agreements on the budget and the farm bill, two major items that leaders hope to resolve by the end of the year. The Speaker said he was hopeful that the House GOP Budget Committee chief, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and his Democratic counterpart in the Senate, Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), could strike a deal that could pass both chambers of Congress, but that none was yet at hand. Paul Ryan came in today and gave us an update on where they were, Boehner said at his weekly Capitol press conference. Im hopeful that theyll be able to work this out, but theres clearly no agreement. He would not say whether or when the House would move to pass a stopgap spending bill if no agreement was reached. The House-Senate budget conference committee has a deadline of Dec. 13, but federal funding does not run out until Jan. 15. Rep Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said he expects next Wednesday is the real deadline for the conference committee to vote on a proposal before recess. On the farm bill, Boehner was more pessimistic and raised the possibility of needing a one-month extension of current policy into next year. Ive not seen any real progress on the farm bill, he said, and so if weve got to pass a one-month extension of the farm bill, then I think well be prepared to do that. Without an extension, milk prices could spike after Jan. 1. Boehner said that he believes an extension should cover the entire farm bill and not just the dairy program. The Speaker was adamant that the House would not stay in session past Dec. 13 to finish work on the legislation. Ive made it clear that the House is going to leave next Friday, Boehner said. You all know me pretty well: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

Wont pass food stamps Neely 13

(12/4/13) http://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/12/04/politics/farm-bill-talks Brett Neely is a congressional and government reporter for Minnesota Public Radio With less than two weeks before federal lawmakers take a holiday break, prospects in Congress for a speedy passage of the long-delayed farm bill appear to be fading. Lead House and Senate negotiators on the federal farm bill met today to try to find a path forward on the longstalled legislation. But the top Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate agriculture committees emerged from their hour-long meeting having made no concrete progress toward a deal. But if recent history is any indication, finding a solution won't be easy. The Senate passed a farm bill in 2012 only to see House Republicans choose not to bring up a bill. This year, the typically bipartisan farm bill was defeated on the floor of the House after scores of Republicans voted against it because they wanted deeper food stamp cuts while Democrats opposed any cuts at all.

Budget
Wont pass Partisan lines Taylor 13 (Andrew Taylor is a journalist at the Associated Press) Budget Deal? Big Obstacles, New Years Deadline December
6, 2013 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/budget-deal-big-obstacles-years-deadline-21115516 With hopes of a "grand bargain" long gone, congressional negotiators now are seeking a more modest deal before year-end to ease the automatic spending cuts that are squeezing both the Pentagon and domestic federal programs. But

the going is getting rougher. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she would withhold support from any compromise to ease across-the-board cuts until Republicans also agree to renew expiring unemployment benefits for America's long-term jobless, adding a major complication. At the same time, conservatives are balking at a proposal to raise fees on airline tickets to pay for TSA agents as part of an agreement, another hurdle.
GOP leaders, meanwhile, are preparing a backup plan for averting another government shutdown in January if there's no budget deal by then.

Negotiators on Capitol Hill are trying hard to close out a deal but are facing resistance from Pelosi and other Democrats determined to add $25 billion to extend federally-paid jobless benefits. Those benefits average $269 a week to people whose 26 weeks of state-paid unemployment benefits have run out. "We cannot, cannot support a budget agreement that does not include unemployment insurance in the budget or as a sidebar in order to move it all along," Pelosi said Thursday at a
hearing to publicize the plight of people set to lose the jobless benefits.

Wont pass - empirics Sherman and Snahan 13 (Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan are political reporters and journalists for POLITICO)
Paul Ryan, Patty Murray a few billion apart December 5, 2012 http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/paul-ryan-patty-murraybudget-deal-100765.html

But hurdles remain, as finding those few billion dollars is difficult in an already tight federal budget.
Ryan and Murray who chair the House and Senate Budget committees respectively will work through the weekend to try to craft the ever-elusive budget agreement. Their self-imposed deadline is Dec. 13, which is next Friday. After then, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) vows he will send the House home for Christmas with or without a budget agreement. If the two sides reach an agreement, it will represent a significant breakthrough in Washingtons budget wars. Just

two months ago, disagreements over federal spending resulted in the first government shutdown in 17 years. Optimism is still tough to come by in budget negotiations, since Boehner, President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have failed multiple times over the last few years to craft a deficit reduction package.

Immigration
Wont pass - Midterms Mascaro 13 GOP promise of immigration reform fades a year after election Lisa Mascaro is a writer for the Los Angeles
Times, published November 29, 2013

Despite the importance of the Latino vote, divisions among Republicans leave immigration reform at a standstill. "Don't use the term'anchor baby' or phrases like 'send them all back,'" said the memo from a Republican-aligned advocacy group, the Hispanic Leadership Network. "Do acknowledge that 'our current immigration system is broken and we need to fix it.'" Changing the way the party talks about immigration is about all House Republicans have to show for their efforts over the last 11 months and even that effort has notable exceptions. The legislative sputter stems from Republicans' focus on the 2014 midterm election. As lawmakers burnish their conservative credentials for potential hard-right primary challenges, they are betting they will have time to court Latinos before the 2016 election. "It's foolhardy," said Alex Nowrasteh, a policy analyst at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute. "On the one hand, Republicans have improved their rhetoric and they've moved much more toward embracing immigration reform. On the other hand, immigration reform was passed in the Senate and was dropped in the House of Representatives, and that makes them look like they're opposed to reform, which in a way, they are."

Wont pass no political incentive for GOP Redstate 13 Immigration Reform (or Amnesty) is ultimately DEAD this Congress published December 3, 2013 Liberatarian1
is a writer for RedState.

President Obama gave a speech Monday in San Francisco calling on Congress to act on immigration reform! House Speaker John Boehner rejected the idea that immigration reform was dead at a press conference late last week! Momentum! Spark! Eh, maybe not so much. Why? Because the underlying political realities in the vast majority of Republican-held congressional districts havent changed a bit. A little bit of math produces some eye-opening numbers. Of the 234 Republicans elected to the 113th Congress, 174 of them 74 percent represent districts with non-white populations under 30 percent. Narrow that slightly and you find 112 members 48 percent of GOP members in the House who represent seats that have a non-white population of less than 20 percent. On the other end of that spectrum, just three House Republicans 1.2 percent hold seats where the non-white population is 70 percent or higher. What those numbers make plain is that for the overwhelming majority of the Republican House majority voting in favor of any sort of broad (or even narrow) scale immigration reform proposal isnt good politics. At best, reforming immigration is not a top-ofthe-mind priority for constituents in most of these districts. At worst, there is opposition to adopting changes that many people believe amounts to amnesty for the 11 million undocumented workers in the U.S.. Obama said Monday that he has told Boehner not to let a minority of folks block something that the country desperately needs. Of course, as these numbers make clear, its not a minority but a strong majority of House Republicans who lack any real political incentive to make changes to the immigration laws on the books. Yes, but, what about the good of the party some will ask. It is unquestionably true that if future Republican presidential nominees cannot win more a LOT more than the 27 percent of the

Hispanic vote that Mitt Romney took in the 2012 election, it will become increasingly difficult for the party to win a national majority. But, all but a handful Paul Ryan, we are looking at you of Republicans in the House have no national ambitions and instead are focused entirely on ensuring they do everything they can to be re-elected in 2014 and beyond. Asking rank and file Members of the House to act on the supposed greater good of the party when that vote could endanger them in their own primaries come 2014 is essentially a non-starter. All of which serves as a reminder of the Republican conundrum on immigration. The party badly needs to re-make its image in the Hispanic community to broaden (or at least create the possibility of broadening) its electoral map in 2016 and beyond. But, its Washington wing particularly in the House see no incentive to do much of anything on immigration. And the Republican base you know, the people who tend to vote in presidential caucuses and primaries are the strongest opponents of changing current law on immigration. Given those contradictions, doing nothing remains the most likely outcome.

Sanctions
New sanctions coming Reid push Zengerle 13
Reid committed to moving ahead with Iran sanctions in Senate PATRICIA ZENGERLE Nov 21, 2013 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/21/us-iran-nuclear-sanctions-reididUSBRE9AK0WN20131121 (Reuters) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Thursday he was committed to moving ahead with a tougher Iran sanctions bill when the Senate returns from a holiday recess early next month, adding to pressure on Tehran as negotiators meet in Geneva on a deal to curb Iran's nuclear program. "I will support a bill that would broaden the scope of our current petroleum sanctions, place limitations on trade with strategic sectors of the Iranian economy that support its nuclear ambitions, as well as pursue those who divert goods to Iran," Reid said on the Senate floor. A sanctions bill has been held up in the Senate Banking Committee for months, after President Barack Obama's administration asked for a delay to allow time to pursue a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. The West says Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, but Tehran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. The holdup by Obama's fellow Democrats, who control the Senate, angered many Republicans as well as some Democrats who threatened to push ahead with their own sanctions measures if the bill in the Banking Committee did not advance. Members of Congress, backed by the influential pro-Israel lobby, tend to be more hawkish on Iran than the Obama administration. Negotiators from world powers were meeting in Geneva on Thursday for a third round of talks to finalize an interim deal for Tehran to curb its nuclear program in exchange for some sanctions relief. Reid said he strongly supports the negotiations, hopes they succeed and wants them to produce "the strongest possible agreement." But he said he was aware that Iran could keep them from succeeding. He said he is a strong supporter of the tough sanctions regime currently in place and believed it had brought Tehran to the negotiating table. "While I support the administration's diplomatic effort, I believe we need to leave our legislative options open to act on a new, bipartisan sanctions bill in December, shortly after we return," Reid said. The Senate and House of Representatives are scheduled to be out of session next week for the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday.

Iran sanctions coming now LAT 13

Congress should give negotiations on Tehran's nuclear program more time to bear fruit The Times editorial board November 17, 2013 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/laed--iran-house-sanctions-20131117,0,6728477.story#ixzz2lKFg7CqA With exquisitely bad timing, a group of House members is urging the Senate to approve new sanctions against Iran in the middle of negotiations on a deal in which the Islamic Republic would suspend its nuclear program. On Thursday, 63 members, led by Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), sent a letter to Senate leaders urging action on the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act, which passed the House in July. The legislation would stiffen sanctions against some Iranian officials and penalize governments that might divert U.S. goods, services or technology to Iran. It also includes an expression of support for "freedom, human rights, civil liberties, free elections and

the rule of law in Iran," which, while unobjectionable in and of itself, can be read as a veiled call for regime change. The House members argue that because existing sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table, "the threat of enhanced sanctions holds the promise of compelling Iran to give up its ambitions." But that threat will exist whether this legislation is enacted or not. The question is whether rushing to institute new sanctions at this time would undermine the delicate negotiations between Iran and the so-called P5-plus-1 the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany.

No sanctions now Warrick AND OKeefe 13

New Iran sanctions not likely while nuclear talks still in progress, key senators say Joby Warrick and Ed OKeefe, November 19 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nationalsecurity/new-iran-sanctions-not-likely-while-nuclear-talks-still-in-progress-key-senatorssay/2013/11/19/251460a4-5163-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html Lawmakers acknowledged Tuesday that they were unlikely to impose new economic sanctions on Iran while sensitive nuclear talks are underway, removing a potential obstacle to a diplomatic settlement that U.S. officials say could come within days. The decision to delay action on new sanctions came as a new Washington Post-ABC News poll showed widespread approval for a deal with Iran, even if that deal means lifting some of the economic restrictions that have helped force Iran to the negotiating table. A bipartisan group of senators emerged from a two-hour White House meeting saying there would likely be no vote this week on proposed new sanctions targeting Irans oil industry. Still, some lawmakers continue to push to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, despite warnings that such a move could prompt the countrys representatives to abandon international negotiations scheduled to resume Wednesday in Geneva. People are concerned that were giving up some leverage, Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters after the White House meeting. The agreement to delay a sanctions vote came as diplomats from the United States, Iran and five other countries arrived in Geneva for the start of potentially decisive negotiations on the future of Irans nuclear program. Diplomats after coming close to a deal two weeks ago are seeking to finalize what U.S. officials describe as a first step in a comprehensive agreement on permanent limits to Irans nuclear capabilities. The planned initial stage would require Iran to freeze key parts of its nuclear program in return for modest, temporary relief from some of the economic sanctions that have decimated the countrys economy over the past two years. But the plan has drawn harsh criticism from Israel as well as many prominent members of Congress who oppose any relief from sanctions without more sweeping concessions from Iran. The Obama administration has defended the proposed phased approach as a necessary confidence-building step leading to a broader deal. White House officials say the bulk of the sanctions against Iran would remain in place until Iran agreed to limits that would essentially prevent it from ever using its nuclear facilities to build atomic bombs. Iranian officials have insisted their nuclear program is solely for peaceful, energyproducing purposes. The president made clear that achieving a peaceful resolution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is profoundly in Americas national security interests, White House press secretary Jay Carney said. The president is determined to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and firmly believes that it would be preferable to do so peacefully. The new poll released Tuesday showed that Americans supported a negotiated settlement with Iran by a ratio of 2 to 1. Poll respondents were asked if they supported a deal that would lift some economic sanctions in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons. Sixty-four

percent of the respondents approved of the theoretic deal, including sizable majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents. The same poll, however, suggested that most Americans are skeptical that a deal can be concluded. The White House meeting on Tuesday was part of an intense lobbying effort by President Obama to stall congressional efforts on new sanctions while negotiations are at a critical phase.

Diplomacy Thumpers
Multiple issues thump diplomacy Burns 13
Diplomacy to the rescue Nicholas Burns; professor of the practice of diplomacy and international politics at Harvards Kennedy School of Government. He was US under secretary of state for political affairs from 2005-2008; Dec 5, 2013 http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/12/05/obama-iran-deal-diplomacyrescue/4OL386SwCViOar5zrp6oZJ/story.html As we turn the corner to 2014, crises are mounting in Obamas foreign policy inbox and for nearly all of them diplomacy, rather than force, will be the right tool. Hell turn to American diplomats to cope with an accelerating refugee crisis in Syria , the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, a Ukraine torn between Europe and Russia, and the ill-advised Chinese airspace declaration that has produced a dangerous standoff with Japan in the East China Sea. But the most difficult test of all will be Iran. Obama has assembled a global coalition and surprisingly effective sanctions regime against Tehran. If the Iranian government ultimately refuses to dismantle its nuclear apparatus, the United States always has the option of force. But isnt Obama right, and in the best American tradition, to try diplomacy first before risking another war in the volatile Middle East?

Multiple issues thump diplomacy Munro 13

Obama will deliver second-term national security strategy in spring 2014 Neil Munro White House Correspondent 11/29/2013 http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/29/obama-willdeliver-second-term-national-security-strategy-in-spring-2014/#ixzz2mfV0tLOx President Barack Obama will release an updated national security strategy next spring, according to a White House announcement issued on Friday. The announcement comes as foreign powers are rushing to take advantage of Obamas first-term U.S. national security policies. The new Strategy will update the vision I provided in 2010 and describe my Administrations national security priorities for the remainder of my term. *dubbed+ the whole-of-government strategy, the White Houses statement read. In my National Security Strategy of 2010, I addressed how the United States would strengthen its global leadership position; end the war in Iraq; disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda; and achieve economic recovery at home and abroad, said the announcement. The new strategy will likely continue Obamas first-term emphasis on diplomatic accommodations with rival states and his rhetorical focus on nascent economic and trade deals. Hes likely also to continue his P.R. focus on the Pakistan-based Al Qaeda organization, while also downplaying the spreading danger Islams jihadi ideology, which is fueling renewed Muslim militias in Arab countries . Since 2009, jihadi-shouting Muslim groups have stepped up their attacks in African countries below the Sahara desert, including Nigeria, Mali, Sudan and Somalia. In Kenya, a group of eight jihadi Muslims murdered at least 67 shoppers at a mall during September. The benefits to Americans of Obamas first-term national strategy are unclear. Iran used Obamas first-term 2010 voluntary retreat from Iraq to solidify its reach through Iraq to Syria to Israels borders, and is now using a late November diplomatic agreement with Obama to shield its nuclear

weapons development program from Israels air force. The program is likely to cause the regions unstable Muslim governments to build their own nuclear weaponry, which may be captured by jihadi groups in future coups and revolutions. Irans nuclear program has been aided by Russia, despite Obamas 2009 effort to reset relations after the departure of President George W. Bush. In North Korea, the dictatorship may restarting its idle plutonium nuclear reactor, which is capable of producing fuel for powerful H-bombs, U.N. officials said Nov. 28. North Korea is the worlds most oppressive dictatorship, and can repeat its blackmail strategy of threatening to sell its weaponry to Iran and other countries unless it gets valuable food and other resources from South Korea and the United States. In Syria, Obamas muchtouted effort to cripple the Iran-backed dictatorship crashed in Setpember, prompting him to accept a face-saving chemical-weapons disarmament deal and leaving Iran free to helps its Syrian ally crush a popular rebellion. Since September, Obama and his deputies have downplayed the Syrian battles. In Asia, China used Obamas 2012 mismanagement of the nations finances to deep-six Obamas proposed U.S.-centered trade Asian pact in October. Instead, China won regional approval for a trading zone that excludes the United States, delivering a little-publicized humiliation to Obama and wrecking his post-2010 plan to shift U.S. security focus towards Asia. This November, China exploited his renewed focus on the Obamacare failure to grab for military control of a resource-rich ocean shelf owned by Japan, a long-time U.S. ally, Japan. In response, the former community organizer has suggested via his deputies that U.S. airliners avoid the zone, suggesting he doesnt want to confront Chinas southern advance, which is opposed by U.S. allies in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. However, Obama has sent U.S. aircraft, in cooperation with Japans air force, through the airspace, showing he does not want to immediately fold. In Egypt, Obama protested the militarys 2012 rescue of the country from the orthodox Muslim Brotherhood, which Obama largely supported throughout his first term. But the president hasnt cut funding to Egypts military, partly because his Secretary of State, John Kerry, wants to support the government. In northern Africa, Obama helped Islamists take over Libya in 2010, leaving the country without a strong government to suppress regional jihadi forces. Since then, jihadis used weapons looted form from Libyas armories to take over the nearby countries of the Central African Republic and Mali. However, Obama provided some aid to the French forces that pushed the Islamists out in January, 2013. In Libya, on September 11, 2012, jihad groups killed four Americans including ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi. The next day, Obama flew to a fundraiser in Las Vegas. Afterwards, Obama and Secretary of State blamed the attack on videomaker in California, who was subsequently jailed after the president of the United States told a U.N.s General Assembly that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. (RELATED: White House blames intelligence agencies for Benghazi confusion) In Turkey, Obamas extensive outreach to the Islamist government of President Recep Erdogan didnt stop Turkey from violating the trade-embargo with Iran, or expanding Islamic sharia rules over the once-secular society, nor extending diplomatic support to the Hamas jihadis who control the Gaza Strip alongside Israel. In Europe, governments and publics reacted angrily to the leaks confirmed widespread surveillance by the National Security Agency, which U.S. officials say provides the president with best and most accurate intelligence on secret developments round the world. U.S. international influence as also been sapped by Obamas management of the economy, which raised U.S. debt by $7 trillion, increased the non-working population by roughly 9 million, and slowed economic growth by extending government regulations over several sectors of the economy, including the energy, banking, health and education sectors.

Iran

UQ - Thumper
Asia thumps Iran specifically Hammond 13
Iranian breakthrough and Obama foreign policy success Andrew Hammond; former US Analyst at Oxford Analytica, and a Special Adviser in the Government of Tony Blair; November 28, 2013 http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/11/28/iranian-breakthrough-and-obama-foreign-policysuccess/ As important as the Iranian nuclear agreement might prove to be, the Middle East is only one of two regions in which Obama is looking for legacy. Since he was elected in 2008, Asia in general, and China in particular, has assumed greater importance in US policy. To this end, Obama is seeking to continue the so-called pivot towards Asia-Pacific through landmark initiatives like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

UQ Wont Happen
No Iranian diplomacy now Irish et al. 13
France, Iran trade barbs as powers struggle to reach nuclear deal JOHN IRISH, PARISA HAFEZI AND JUSTYNA PAWLAK Nov 21, 2013 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/21/us-irannuclear-idUSBRE9AI0CV20131121 (Reuters) - France and Iran traded tough words on Thursday as major powers struggled to finalize an interim deal to curb Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, with Paris urging the West to hold firm and Tehran deploring a loss of trust. Each side appeared to be dampening down anticipation of an imminent breakthrough after the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany came close to winning concessions from Tehran in the last round of negotiations two weeks ago. Several Western diplomats said there was a good chance U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry would join foreign ministers from the other five members of the six nation group in Geneva in another attempt to nail down a long elusive deal with Iran. One diplomat saw a "very high probability" of ministers coming. But finding common ground on the contours of an accord designed to start removing the risk of Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability - an intention it denies having - was proving to be an uphill battle. "Lots of progress was made last time, but considerable gaps remain, and we have to narrow the gaps," said a senior Western diplomat. "Some issues really need to be clarified. I sensed a real commitment ... from both sides. Will it happen? We will see. But, as always, the devil is in the details." Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Tehran's chief negotiator, told Iran's ISNA students news agency that the talks were going well though "differences of views" remain. Under discussion is an Iranian suspension of some sensitive nuclear activities, above all mediumlevel uranium enrichment, in exchange for modest sanctions relief - releasing some Iranian funds long frozen in foreign accounts, allowing trade in precious metals, the United States relaxing pressure on other countries not to buy Iranian oil, and other measures. The Iranians have made clear, diplomats in the talks say, that they are most interested in resuming oil sales and getting respite from restrictions on Iranian banking and financial transactions that have crippled the oil-dependent economy. The main disputes appear to include Iran's quest for some recognition of its "right to enrich", the powers' demand for a shutdown of the Arak heavy-water reactor project, and the extent of sanctions rollbacks on the table. CRUCIAL U.S.IRAN ENCOUNTERS The Iranians held a bilateral session late on Wednesday with the U.S. delegation, headed by Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, a senior State Department official said, without elaborating. Despite the presence of six powers, it is ultimately Iran and the United States who have the power to make or break a deal, diplomats say. Relations between the two were ruptured by Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution. The State Department official said European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, coordinating contacts with Iran on behalf of the powers, sought in meetings with Zarif to close gaps between the two sides. Big power delegations also conducted their own strategy sessions throughout the day. Policymakers from the six governments have said an interim accord on confidence-building steps could be within reach to defuse a decade-old stand-off and dispel the specter of a wider Middle East war over the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions. But before negotiations began in earnest on details of the proposal on Thursday, France and Iran cranked up the rhetoric. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who spoke out against a draft deal floated at the November 7-9 negotiating round, was asked by France 2 television if there could be a deal. "I

hope so. But this agreement can only be possible based on firmness. For now the Iranians have not been able to accept the position of the six. I hope they will accept it." In what appeared to be a response targeted at France, Zarif's deputy, Abbas Araqchi, said: "We have lost our trust... We cannot enter serious talks until the trust is restored. But that doesn't mean that we will stop negotiations." Asked how trust could be restored, he said: "If they (the six powers) create one front, and stick with united words." For the six powers, an interim deal would have Iran stop refining uranium to a concentration of 20 percent - a relatively short step away from weapons-grade material, accept more exhaustive U.N. nuclear inspections and mothball the Arak reactor, a potential source of weapons-grade plutonium. MANOEUVRING OVER "RIGHT TO ENRICH" Israel has lobbied hard against this formula, saying it offers Iran too much for too little by leaving its enrichment infrastructure, and therefore bomb-making potential, intact. The Israeli criticism has resonated in the U.S. Congress, where skeptics are calling for further U.S. sanctions against Tehran, something President Barack Obama's administration has warned could derail the negotiations in Geneva. Despite the concerted diplomacy in Geneva, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Thursday he was committed to pursuing a tougher Iran sanctions bill when the Senate returns from a holiday recess early next month. Iran has demanded the powers acknowledge its right to enrich uranium, something the United States, France and other Western leaders refuse to do. Kerry said on Wednesday the issue of whether Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium in the longer term would not be decided in the interim deal. Araqchi said "enrichment is our red line but we can discuss the level and the amount" of uranium to be enriched. A senior Iranian delegation member, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Tehran understood that all oil and banking sanctions could not be removed "in one go" but that enrichment was a red line and "we should have a paragraph on it ... "If that element is not there, there will be no deal". Zarif hinted at a possible way around this issue last weekend - Iran could insist on its own right to enrich uranium without requiring others to explicitly recognize it. The interim arrangement under consideration calls for a six-month period of sanctions relief for Tehran that would give Iran and the powers time to craft a broad, permanent accord. The United States has said the majority of sanctions will remain in place and any temporary sanctions relief would be canceled if no long-lasting agreement with Tehran is reached, or if the Iranians violate the terms of the interim deal. "RABID DOG" Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday repeated in a speech that Tehran would not step back from its nuclear rights, called Israel a "rabid dog" and criticized France for "kneeling before the Israeli regime". Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who flew to Russia on Wednesday to appeal for tougher terms, said Khamenei's comments showed Iran had not changed since relative moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected as president in June. "He called Jews 'rabid dogs' and said that they were not human. The public responded to him with calls of 'Death to America! Death to Israel!' Doesn't this sound familiar to you? This is the real Iran! We are not confused. They must not have nuclear weapons. And I promise you that they will not have nuclear weapons," the right-wing premier said.

Diplomacy wont be successful accord proves nothing Gordon 13

Longer-Term Deal With Iran Faces Major Challenges MICHAEL R. GORDON November 24, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/world/middleeast/officials-say-the-toughest-work-onirans-nuclear-program-still-lies-ahead.html?ref=middleeast LONDON The Obama administrations successful push for an accord that would temporarily freeze much of Irans nuclear program has cast a spotlight on the more formidable challenge it now confronts in trying to roll the program back. For all of the drama of late-night make-or-

break talks in Geneva, the deal that Secretary of State John Kerry and his negotiating partners announced early on Sunday was largely a holding action, meant to keep the Iranian nuclear program in check for six months while negotiators pursue a far tougher and more lasting agreement. By itself, the interim pact does not foreclose either sides main options or require many irreversible actions which was why the two sides were able to come to terms on it. That was also a reason for the sharp negative reaction the deal elicited on Sunday from Israel, an American ally that is deeply suspicious of Iranian intentions. Named the Joint Plan of Action, the four-page agreement specifies in terse language the steps Iran would initially take to constrain its nuclear effort, and the financial relief it would get from the United States and its partners. A few technical details are left to footnotes. The agreements preamble says that a more comprehensive solution is the eventual goal, and the broad elements of that solution are given in bullet points on the final page. The agreement allows Iran to preserve most of its nuclear infrastructure, and along with it the ability to develop a nuclear device, while the United States keeps in place the core oil and banking sanctions it has imposed. The questions that the United States and Iran need to grapple with in the next phase of their nuclear dialogue, if they want to overcome their long years of enmity, are more fundamental. Now the difficult part starts , said Olli Heinonen, the former deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even the planned duration of the comprehensive followup agreement is still up in the air. It will not be open-ended, but there is as yet no meeting of the minds on how many years it would be in effect. The interim agreement says only that it would be for a period to be agreed upon. The terms of the comprehensive agreement have yet to be defined, but it is suggested that that agreement will itself have an expiration date, said Ray Takeyh, a former State Department official and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. It would be good if the comprehensive agreement was more final. Irans program to enrich uranium also needs to be dealt with in detail. The Obama administration has made clear that it is not prepared to concede at the start that Iran has a right to enrich uranium. But the interim deal, reflecting language proposed by the American delegation, says the follow-up agreement would provide for a mutually defined enrichment program with practical limits and transparency. So the question appears to be not whether Iran will be allowed to continue enriching uranium, but rather what constraints the United States and its negotiating partners will insist on in return, and how large an enrichment program they are willing to tolerate. The interim accord makes clear that it must be consistent with practical needs. Iran and the United States are likely to have very different ideas of what those needs are. This, of course, will be one of the central issues in the negotiations for a comprehensive agreement, said Gary Samore, who served as senior aide on nonproliferation issues on the National Security Council during the Obama administration and is now president of United Against Nuclear Iran, an organization that urges that strong sanctions be imposed on Iran until it further restricts its nuclear efforts. We will want very small and limited, Mr. Samore said, referring to Irans enrichment efforts. They want industrial scale. The negotiators will confront other difficult questions regarding elements of a comprehensive agreement that would be difficult to reverse. Will the underground Fordo enrichment plant have to be shut down? Will the heavy-water reactor that Iran is building near the town of Arak, which could produce plutonium for weapons, have to be dismantled or converted into a light-water reactor that is not useful for weapons development? The interim deal did not do enough to narrow down the limitations that will be in a final deal, said David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security.

No Iran diplomacy - radicals Naimdec 13

The Case for Giving Iran's Scholar-Diplomats a Chance MOISS NAMDEC 3 2013 http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/12/the-case-for-giving-irans-scholardiplomats-a-chance/282010/ The probability that the Geneva accord called a first step will derail because of the actions of extremists on both sides is high , and the deadline is only six months away. After that, there is the option of extending the talks for another six months in the hopes of attaining the big prize: permanent limits on and reliable verification of Irans nuclear program. For critics, such a prize does not exist. They believe the hope that Rouhani and his team can fend off fundamentalists is naive, and that Iran is bent on getting nuclear weapons and continuing to use terror as a tool to mold the Middle East and eventually achieve its oft-stated aim of destroying the state of Israel. Tehrans reformists have a similar worry: Will Barack Obama and his international allies be able to limit the bellicose positions of radicals in their midst?

Congress derails Iranian negotiations Abadi 13

How Congress Could Derail a Nuclear Deal With Iran Cameron Abadi November 25, 2013 http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-25/how-congress-could-derail-a-nuclear-dealwith-iran When Secretary of State John Kerry joined the nuclear negotiations at the Intercontinental Hotel in Geneva last Saturday, he employed the oldest negotiating trick in the book, evoking Congress as the bad cop to the Obama administrations good cop. Kerry told Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif that if they failed to reach an agreement that day, the Obama administration would be unable to prevent Congress from passing additional sanctions against Iran. Less than 24 hours later, Kerry and Zarif walked into the hotel lobby to announce that they had struck a deal to freeze Irans nuclear program temporarily. In the face of criticism from members of Congress and U.S. allies in the Middle East, administration officials have insisted that the Geneva agreement is just the first step toward a more far-reaching disarmament deal. But such a deal will require that the Obama administration promise not just to forestall the imposition of new sanctions, but also to reduce dramatically the sanctions already in place. And that depends on the cooperation of a Congress that has been singularly uninterested in assuming the role of good cop in the showdown with Iran. The White House has some discretion to rescind the Iran sanctions without Congresss approval. The method for removing any given set of sanctions depends on how those sanctions were passed in the first place. If theyre the product of an executive order, as many of the existing sanctions against Iran are, removing them requires only that the White House decide to stop enforcing them. Thats exactly how the administration will be making good on its promise to Iran, as part of last weeks interim agreement, to restore access to $7 billion held in foreign bank accounts. STORY: How Much More Oil Does Iran Get to Sell? Removing sanctions that have been passed into law by Congress, however, is a much more difficult challenge. Despite the partisan gridlock in Washington over the past several years, bipartisan majorities have managed to cooperate on three separate rounds of sanctions since 2010, including measures targeting Irans central bank, which Iran will undoubtedly want rescinded. Removing those laws from the books will force the White House to go through Congress all over again. That will require overcoming the partisanship and procedural hurdles that have consumed Congress in recent years . More challenging still, it will require confronting the many members of Congress who harbor goals

for the nuclear negotiations that diverge sharply from the goals of the White House. Although last weeks interim agreement essentially concedes that Iran will maintain an enrichment program in any future compromise, many members of Congress have declared that Iran cannot be trusted with any nuclear capabilities at all. Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who co-sponsored the most recent round of sanctions to pass Congress, has been particularly blunt. How do you define an Iranian moderate? he said recently. Thats an Iranian whos out of bullets and money. In responding to the Geneva deal, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) declared: There is now an even more urgent need for Congress to increase sanctions until Iran completely abandons its enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. VIDEO: Why Are There So Many Critics of the Iran Deal? To the extent that this remains simple grandstanding, it neednt interrupt the ongoing negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear agreement. But the danger is that Congress could seek to pass new legislation setting conditions on future negotiations and on the eventual removal of sanctions. A bipartisan congressional group is pushing a bill that would automatically impose new sanctions against Iran if it fails to agree to a comprehensive deal during the six-month duration of the existing interim agreement. The law may also seek to define in advance the boundaries of an acceptable comprehensive agreement. It wouldnt be the first time that Congress tried to reduce the Obama administrations flexibility. Earlier this year, Kirk drafted legislation that would have severed the tie between sanctions and the nuclear program by keeping them in place until the Government of Iran has released all political prisoners, is transitioning to a free and democratically elected government, and is protecting the rights and freedoms of all citizens of Iran, including women and minorities. But the international stakes are now higher than theyve ever been. Which is why the White Houses biggest foreign-policy priority is selling its Iran policy at home . Dennis Ross, Obamas former adviser on Iran, says that if the administration does finalize a comprehensive deal with Iran, it will immediately have to make the case that there is no other diplomatic alternative. Those on the Hill who disagree would then be forced to make the case for war, Ross says. I want to see who would say at that point, No, thats not good enough. VIDEO: How Would Iran Make a Nuclear Bomb? The bottom line: The White House doesnt have the power to lift all sanctions on Iran and will need cooperation from Congress.

Iran deal not coming - multiple warrants Jahn 13

"Deal Closer: Iran Concedes on Right to Enrich" GEORGE JAHN; Associated Press; November 19, 2013 http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/deal-closer-iran-concedes-enrich20934263?singlePage=true But even if squabbling over that issue is put aside for now, other differences may remain in the way to an initial agreement that freezes Iran's nuclear program in exchange for some relief of sanctions crippling Tehran's economy. As a first step, the six want limits on Iran's overall capacity to enrich and a total stop to enrichment to a level that can be turned to weaponsgrade uranium much more quickly than Iran's main stockpile of lower-enriched, fuel-grade material. They also seek more rigorous international monitoring of Iran's nuclear facilities and some formula that eases international concerns about a reactor now under construction that will produce plutonium, which also can be used to arm a nuclear bomb. Reflecting deepening rifts, the semiofficial Mehr news agency said Tuesday that some Iranian parliamentarians are working to block the government from agreeing to such concessions. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham, meanwhile, warned members of U.S. Congress favoring new

sanctions that such a move would "completely destroy ... the healthy and useful atmosphere" at the talks.

Doesnt solve
Even a successful deal would accomplish anything Shapiro 13
Obama Shifts To Foreign Policy Goals During Second Term ARI SHAPIRO November 18, 2013 http://www.npr.org/2013/11/18/245847591/obama-aims-to-accomplish-foreign-policy-goalsduring-2nd-term But another Iran expert, Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, warns that even if the U.S. signs a deal with Iran and Congress gets on board, that deal may be less of a victory than the White House hopes. "Which is to say that the two sides interpret the agreement differently," Clawson says. "The two sides have different expectations, that each side thinks the other side isn't fully living up to the agreement, that there's a bitter taste left in everybody's mouth about where this ends up, and there's a continuing crisis, sometimes low level [and] sometimes bubbling more to the surface." Clawson says past presidents may have looked to the Middle East as a source of redemption, but it has proved more often a region of dashed expectations.

Unilateral Strike Turn

Iran deal causes war - Israeli unilateral action Berman 13
"White House could help birth nuclear Iran: Column" Ilan Berman; vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council; November 17, 2013 http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/11/17/iran-nuclear-deal-obama-kerrycolumn/3619147/ Some foreign officials have charged that the terms offered to Iran in Geneva (or similar ones) could have the effect of causing a breakdown of the international sanctions regime so painstakingly erected by the West over the past decade-and-a-half. Or, for that matter, of prompting an Israeli military strike. According to the Times of Israel, one of France's major considerations in opposing the Geneva deal was a credible warning that the deal could have forced Israel to take unilateral action . That's not nearly as remote a possibility as some may think. Although its Iran policy is far from settled, Israel has long calibrated its approach based on America's. So long as Washington appeared to be pursuing a serious strategy for preventing Iranian from going nuclear, officials in Jerusalem were generally willing to bide their time. But perceptions that the White House has gone wobbly could well force the Israeli government's hand. It's a bad sign, then, that at the moment official Washington looks like it is profoundly unserious. In its pursuit of some sort of bargain with Iran's ayatollahs, the White House now runs a real risk of accidentally playing midwife to a nuclear Iran or of precipitating Israel to act on its own.

Even if a strike doesnt happen, Iran will prolif, that independently causes nuclear war Kuhner 13
Obamas Munich: Diplomacy paving the road to war Jeffrey T. Kuhner; celebrated talk radio host at Bostons WRKO and a columnist for The Washington Times and WorldTribune.com; Dec 1, 2013 http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/12/01/obamas-munich-diplomacy-paving-theroad-to-war/ History is repeating itself. The recent interim nuclear deal signed by the United States and other major powers with Iran in Geneva paves the way for war. President Obama is the new Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who boasted of creating peace in our time after signing an agreement with Nazi Germany. In fact, the deal at Munich guaranteed only one thing: another bloody conflict. Obama has given the world a second Munich. He will rue the day. On Sept. 30, 1938, Britain and France capitulated to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. Czechoslovakia was betrayed in order to appease Hitlers expansionist ambitions. Sacrificing Czechoslovakias territorial integrity, however, only whetted Hitlers appetite for further aggression. In fact, Chamberlains cowardly act only increased the Nazi strongmans contempt for both England and the West. boncMunich gave Hitler the time and military capability to eventually conquer most of Europe. It was a prelude to much greater disasters the invasion of Poland, the Nazi-Soviet pact, the fall of France, the Holocaust and the over 50 million deaths caused by World War II. The lesson of Munich was clear: genocidal dictatorships bent on domination cannot be appeased. They must be contained and eventually defeated. The Obama administration has forgotten this. Desperate for some kind of a deal, Secretary of State John

Kerry has made an historic, almost unforgivable blunder. The agreement gives Irans Islamist mullahs a very precious gift: the time they need to achieve a nuclear bomb. Obamas first and gravest mistake is to assume the regime in Tehran is rational and genuinely seeks peace with its neighbors. It doesnt. From its inception in 1979, the Islamic Republic has been driven by a messianic radical Shiite ideology. Its mission is to dominate the Middle East in order to create a global caliphate one that they believe will usher in the coming of the 12th Imam, the Shiite Muslim Christ prophesied in the apocalypse. In short, religious fanatics control Irans Islamofascist theocracy. They champion salvation through Armageddon. For decades, Tehran has been waging a covert war against America and Israel. It is the greatest sponsor of state terrorism in the world. It has armed, trained and funded Shiite militias in Iraq responsible for murdering numerous U.S. troops. It backs jihadists in Afghanistan, who are killing and maiming our soldiers. The Iranian regime has American blood on its hands. Iraq has fallen under its sphere of influence. It supports Hizbullah and Hamas. It has turned southern Lebanon into a political vassal. It props up Syrias strongman Bashar Assad, enabling him to continue his brutal civil war. It imprisons and tortures dissidents. Homosexuals are stoned and killed. Women are relegated to second-class status. Christians are routinely persecuted; some of them are lashed simply for taking communion wine. It is a murderous, Islamic police state. Yet, the linchpin of Irans theocracy like Nazi Germany is anti-Semitism. The reason is simple: For the revolutionary Shiite prophecy to be fulfilled, the Jews, and especially, the Jewish state, must be annihilated. Teherans leaders have repeatedly and publicly called for Israels destruction. They believe the blood of dead Jews will consecrate the coming world Muslim empire. For example, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei just prior to the deal in Geneva said the Jews are the rabid dogs of the Middle East and that the Zionist regime is doomed to destruction. This is why Israel, as well as other Sunni Muslim powers, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, are convinced that a nuclear-armed Iran poses an existential threat. Deranged mullahs with nuclear weapons could plunge the entire region into a cataclysm . Since becoming president, Obama has promised Israel and our Arab allies that he would never allow Tehran to acquire the bomb. He has prevented Jerusalem and Riyadh from taking unilateral military action. The Israelis and Saudis similar to the Czechs in 1938 have been betrayed. The deal does nothing to stop Iran from enriching uranium. Its centrifuge stockpiles will not be eliminated. Its Arak plutonium reactor will not be dismantled. In other words, the mullahs nuclear weapons program will not be hindered in any meaningful way. In exchange, sanctions will be eased and the regime will gain access to nearly $8 billion in frozen assets. Like Munich, the Geneva deal is a fools bargain. In return for cosmetic concessions, Iran now has a clear path to go nuclear. The end result almost ensures a war. Either Israel (and maybe Saudi Arabia) must launch a military strike against Teherans nuclear sites before it is too late. Or Iran attains the bomb and makes good on its repeated promise, thereby sparking a nuclear holocaust. Obama has committed an historic diplomatic bungle. His name should go down in infamy.

Israeli security experts are unanimously threatened by Iran Netanyahu will only accept radical diplomacy Kaye 13
A different Israeli take on Iran Dalia Dassa Kaye; director of the Center for Middle East Public Policy at Rand Corp; Nov 14, 2013 http://irdiplomacy.ir/en/page/1924513/A+different+Israeli+take+on+Iran.html

Even as the Geneva talks on Iran's nuclear program were underway, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly rejected the deal diplomats were working to achieve. It would be, he said, the "deal of the century" for Iran but "a very bad deal" for other countries. An agreement did not come out of last week's talks. But when the participants resume negotiations later this month, they should keep one thing in mind: Not all Israelis are as alarmed about a potential deal as Netanyahu. Indeed, some see potential for a final nuclear deal that would protect Israeli security while allowing for limited enrichment activity in Iran. Israel's security elite nearly unanimously agrees that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be detrimental to Israeli and regional stability . Despite some fissures within the security establishment about whether Iran poses an existential threat (and disagreements about the merits of a unilateral Israeli military strike), Israeli experts across the spectrum believe a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to dangerous military escalations, embolden Hezbollah and other Iranian allies, and potentially set off further nuclear proliferation in the region . It is thus not surprising that Israelis would reject any deal that would allow Iran to continue nuclear activities that would enable it to quickly weaponize its program under the cover of an agreement. But from Netanyahu's perspective, the only acceptable deal with Iran is one that completely dismantles all of Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities .

Israel will strike unilaterally on the perception of a threat Ganji 13

Netanyahu: Crying wolf again Akbar Ganji; one of Iran's leading political dissidents and has received over a dozen human rights awards for his efforts. Imprisoned in Iran until 2006, he is the author of one book in English, The Road to Democracy in Iran, which lays out a strategy for a non-violent transition to democracy in Iran; 30 November 2013 http://m.aljazeera.com/story/2013112565432311773 Netanyahu is dangerous not only for Iran, but also for Israel and its people. If Israel launches military strikes on Iran, the repercussions will be grave, not only for Iran and Israel, but also for the entire region. The government of Israel is in the habit of launching brazen strikes on other sovereign nations on mere suspicion that they pose a threat to Israel security . It is routinely dictating what rights other countries may or may not have based on whether it thinks those rights may endanger its security. As if it is the government of Israel, a non-NPT member that has usurped the prerogative of NPT, to determine who can or cannot have access to nuclear energy. Netanyahu constantly manufactures crises to make people forget about Palestinians and the two-state solution. He is a threat, not only against the rest of the world, but also against his own people.

Netanyahu wants to unilaterally strike Iran, but it will fail Brunnstrom 13

U.S. assures Israel that core Iran sanctions still in place David Brunnstrom; Reuters; December 5, 2013 http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-assures-israel-core-iran-sanctions-still-place114539339.html Israel's fierce opposition about the Geneva deal have raised speculation - fuelled by regular public hints from Netanyahu - that it might carry out long-threatened unilateral strikes against Iran. But while Israel is widely assumed to have the region's only nuclear arsenal, many

independent analysts believe it lacks the conventional clout to deliver lasting damage to the distant, dispersed and well-defended Iranian facilities.

Neg Iran Diplomacy

UQ
Iran is the priority and diplomacy is working, but its on a razor-thin margin, failure guarantees war Shapiro 13
Obama Shifts To Foreign Policy Goals During Second Term ARI SHAPIRO November 18, 2013 http://www.npr.org/2013/11/18/245847591/obama-aims-to-accomplish-foreign-policy-goalsduring-2nd-term Right now, the White House sees an opportunity with Iran . In a speech last week at the Middle East Institute, National Security Adviser Susan Rice said that for the first time in many years the U.S. is seeing "signs that Iran's leadership may be serious about a nuclear deal." Even in this foreign arena, Congress could still block a deal. Many Republicans and some Democrats think a new round of sanctions would force Iran to offer more at the negotiating table. "There is growing concern in Congress that the outlines of this agreement do not meet the standards needed to protect the United States and to protect U.S. allies," Republican Ed Royce, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said at a hearing last week. President Obama sent his secretary of state to Congress to try to talk lawmakers out of passing new sanctions. The president said new sanctions would take the U.S. down a path that eventually leads to war . At a White House press conference, Obama urged people to give this potential deal a chance to work. "If it turns out six months from now that they're not that serious ... we can dial those sanctions right back up," he said. So a legacy-defining deal with Iran is far from a sure thing. Iran expert Cliff Kupchan of the Eurasia Group puts the chances slightly above 50 percent . He says if this does happen, it could profoundly shape history's view of Obama.

Diplomacy with Iran is working, but its on the brink due to Israel, we have to use as much diplomacy as possible to prevent Israeli unilateralism Freedland 13
Barack Obama's on a diplomatic roll that shouldn't end with Iran Jonathan Freedland; The Guardian; 29 November 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/30/barack-obama-diplomatic-roll-irangeneva-nuclear A similar dynamic could operate in reverse. Obama knows he has angered his Israeli ally and that might make him reluctant to do so a second time. The US president already has a job on his hands winning congressional blessing for the Geneva pact. Given the wide support Bibi enjoys on Capitol Hill, Obama will only make his task harder by demanding Israel concede to the Palestinians. Add that Kerry's "bandwidth" for the next six months will be consumed by closing the Iran deal , and that Israeli-Palestinian talks are said to be stalled anyway, and you can see why few expect a Geneva bounce. The safest wager would be on Bibi "managing" whatever pressure comes from Obama, going through the motions with the Palestinians and waiting for the US president to be a certified lame duck. Meanwhile, he'll do what he can to

undermine the accord with Iran. But there's another, riskier bet to make. It says that Obama now has momentum in the Middle East, using diplomacy to solve problems previously deemed soluble only through military action . Perhaps it's true that he stumbled on a remedy for Syria, but progress on the destruction of Bashar al-Assad's chemical arsenal is real. And now there is Iran. That pair of triumphs might give the US administration the confidence to push hard for a third success even in a conflict so long deemed intractable. Despite appearances, Washington retains leverage: Israel needs America. However great the temptation, Bibi can't simply give Obama the finger. And, if Netanyahu is serious about resisting the six-month push to a full and final agreement with Tehran, then he will surely calculate that he cannot fight on two fronts at once. Given the primacy he attaches to Iran, he could well decide that it's on the Palestinian issue that he can afford to budge. There will be domestic pressures pushing him in that direction, too. His stance has been heavily criticised by all wings of the Israeli press, not because commentators there think the Geneva deal addresses Israel's security angst they don't but because they believe Israel cannot afford to antagonise its American ally. They criticise Bibi for messing up that critical relationship. Intriguingly, Obama's policy of restraint found a supportive echo in the Israeli securocracy: it was the loud, sometimes public opposition of current and former military and intelligence chiefs that made it all but impossible for Netanyahu to contemplate air strikes against Iran. It turns out that it was the fruit of a deliberate, planned effort by Washington , patiently creating what one analysis calls a "United States lobby" within the Israeli security elite . Now established, there is no reason why that same US lobby could not be mobilised to pressure Bibi again this time on the Israel-Palestine track. With Obama freed of the demands of reelection, and Kerry apparently cured of presidential ambition, the pair could do what no US administration has attempted in a decade and a half: exert some meaningful pressure on Israel to make peace . That could come in the form of the US issuing its own "bridging proposal", a vision of the ultimate resolution of this conflict that seeks to reconcile the demands of the two sides. Netanyahu won't like it, but one Israeli observer who knows his record well believes that is the only way Bibi will ever shift: "He never does anything unless he can show he was forced into it by someone or something bigger ." If Obama issues the blueprint for an accord with the Palestinians for him, Bibi might just find a way to accept it. If he does, he will find ready support from Israel's opposition Labour party, which this week elected a new leader, one eager to join a Bibi-led coalition if the latter is serious about reaching an accord. To repeat, you wouldn't want to bet your house on such a hopeful scenario. But there is a path that could lead from Geneva to Jerusalem. Barack Obama opened that path he should now take it.

Obama push now, but diplomatic capital key Gordon 13

Longer-Term Deal With Iran Faces Major Challenges MICHAEL R. GORDON November 24, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/world/middleeast/officials-say-the-toughest-work-onirans-nuclear-program-still-lies-ahead.html?ref=middleeast LONDON The Obama administrations successful push for an accord that would temporarily freeze much of Irans nuclear program has cast a spotlight on the more formidable challenge it now confronts in trying to roll the program back. For all of the drama of late-night make-orbreak talks in Geneva, the deal that Secretary of State John Kerry and his negotiating partners

announced early on Sunday was largely a holding action, meant to keep the Iranian nuclear program in check for six months while negotiators pursue a far tougher and more lasting agreement. By itself, the interim pact does not foreclose either sides main options or require many irreversible actions which was why the two sides were able to come to terms on it. That was also a reason for the sharp negative reaction the deal elicited on Sunday from Israel, an American ally that is deeply suspicious of Iranian intentions. Named the Joint Plan of Action, the four-page agreement specifies in terse language the steps Iran would initially take to constrain its nuclear effort, and the financial relief it would get from the United States and its partners. A few technical details are left to footnotes. The agreements preamble says that a more comprehensive solution is the eventual goal, and the broad elements of that solution are given in bullet points on the final page. The agreement allows Iran to preserve most of its nuclear infrastructure, and along with it the ability to develop a nuclear device, while the United States keeps in place the core oil and banking sanctions it has imposed. The questions that the United States and Iran need to grapple with in the next phase of their nuclear dialogue, if they want to overcome their long years of enmity, are more fundamental. Now the difficult part starts , said Olli Heinonen, the former deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even the planned duration of the comprehensive followup agreement is still up in the air. It will not be open-ended, but there is as yet no meeting of the minds on how many years it would be in effect. The interim agreement says only that it would be for a period to be agreed upon. The terms of the comprehensive agreement have yet to be defined, but it is suggested that that agreement will itself have an expiration date, said Ray Takeyh, a former State Department official and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. It would be good if the comprehensive agreement was more final. Irans program to enrich uranium also needs to be dealt with in detail. The Obama administration has made clear that it is not prepared to concede at the start that Iran has a right to enrich uranium. But the interim deal, reflecting language proposed by the American delegation, says the follow-up agreement would provide for a mutually defined enrichment program with practical limits and transparency. So the question appears to be not whether Iran will be allowed to continue enriching uranium, but rather what constraints the United States and its negotiating partners will insist on in return, and how large an enrichment program they are willing to tolerate. The interim accord makes clear that it must be consistent with practical needs. Iran and the United States are likely to have very different ideas of what those needs are. This, of course, will be one of the central issues in the negotiations for a comprehensive agreement, said Gary Samore, who served as senior aide on nonproliferation issues on the National Security Council during the Obama administration and is now president of United Against Nuclear Iran, an organization that urges that strong sanctions be imposed on Iran until it further restricts its nuclear efforts. We will want very small and limited, Mr. Samore said, referring to Irans enrichment efforts. They want industrial scale. The negotiators will confront other difficult questions regarding elements of a comprehensive agreement that would be difficult to reverse. Will the underground Fordo enrichment plant have to be shut down? Will the heavy-water reactor that Iran is building near the town of Arak, which could produce plutonium for weapons, have to be dismantled or converted into a light-water reactor that is not useful for weapons development? The interim deal did not do enough to narrow down the limitations that will be in a final deal, said David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security. Hoping to reassure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who called the easing of sanctions on Iran a historic mistake, President Obama told him that the United States would press for a comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear question in the

months ahead. The diplomats who worked out the interim agreement left open the possibility that it might be extended beyond six months. The text of the deal says it is renewable by mutual consent. Some analysts said that hammering out a comprehensive solution seems so onerous that there may never be an enduring accord but only a succession of partial agreements. Even if a more comprehensive agreement is never reached, experts say, a limited agreement can still be useful. The interim deal includes improved verification, constraints on Irans installation of new centrifuges, and the requirement that Iran dilute its existing stock of uranium enriched to 20 percent, or else convert it to oxide, a less readily used form. Moreover, the cap imposed on Irans stockpile of uranium enriched to 5 percent would increase the time that Iran would need to make a dash for a bomb, adding several weeks or perhaps a month. This may seem a small time, Mr. Albright said. But because the interim deal also includes provisions that would make it easier to spot cheating swiftly, the added time would be significant, he said. The United States successfully opposed Irans demand that it be allowed to continue installing components at the heavy-water plant at Arak. The interim pact also stipulates that Iran cannot test or produce fuel for that reactor or put it into operation. As it sought to strengthen the accord, the United States added a sweetener. As the talks progressed, the amount of oil revenue frozen in foreign banks that Iran would be allowed to retrieve was raised to $4.2 billion from $3.6 billion. Mr. Kerry said on Sunday that he was as committed to the really hard part, obtaining a comprehensive follow-up agreement, which would require enormous steps in terms of verification, transparency and accountability. Speaking in London before a meeting with William Hague, the British foreign secretary, he said, We will start today, literally, to continue the efforts out of Geneva and to press forward.

Kerry push now Berman 13

"White House could help birth nuclear Iran: Column" Ilan Berman; vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council; November 17, 2013 http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/11/17/iran-nuclear-deal-obama-kerrycolumn/3619147/ Rumors of the agreement's demise, moreover, look to be greatly exaggerated. Administration officials like Secretary of State John Kerry, having invested considerable time and effort in "getting to yes" with their Iranian counterparts, have talked up the benefits of the purported deal and indicated that they are more than willing to try again. Kerry himself took to the Sunday talk shows to defend the administration against charges that it had "folded" in negotiations with Iran. "We are not blind, and I don't think we're stupid," Mr. Kerry told NBC's Meet the Press.

Iran deal causes war - Israeli unilateral action Berman 13

"White House could help birth nuclear Iran: Column" Ilan Berman; vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council; November 17, 2013 http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/11/17/iran-nuclear-deal-obama-kerrycolumn/3619147/ Some foreign officials have charged that the terms offered to Iran in Geneva (or similar ones) could have the effect of causing a breakdown of the international sanctions regime so painstakingly erected by the West over the past decade-and-a-half. Or, for that matter, of prompting an Israeli military strike. According to the Times of Israel, one of France's major

considerations in opposing the Geneva deal was a credible warning that the deal could have forced Israel to take unilateral action . That's not nearly as remote a possibility as some may think. Although its Iran policy is far from settled, Israel has long calibrated its approach based on America's. So long as Washington appeared to be pursuing a serious strategy for preventing Iranian from going nuclear, officials in Jerusalem were generally willing to bide their time. But perceptions that the White House has gone wobbly could well force the Israeli government's hand. It's a bad sign, then, that at the moment official Washington looks like it is profoundly unserious. In its pursuit of some sort of bargain with Iran's ayatollahs, the White House now runs a real risk of accidentally playing midwife to a nuclear Iran or of precipitating Israel to act on its own.

Iran open to negotiations - now is key George et al. 13

"Iran says path open for solution to nuclear dispute" Reporting by Marcus George and Isabel Coles; Editing by Jon Hemming and Mark Heinrich Nov 19, 2013 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/19/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBRE9AI0CV20131119 (Reuters) - The path to a resolution of the dispute over Iran's nuclear program is open, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in remarks released on Tuesday, and world powers should seize an "historic opportunity" to clinch a deal. Iran is to meet the six powers on Wednesday for the third round of negotiations in a month, two weeks after the sides came close to an initial accord that would curb Iran's nuclear activity in exchange for limited relief from sanctions. In a five-minute Foreign Ministry video released on the eve of the talks, Zarif said there was a chance to end the stand-off as long as Western powers dealt with Iran on an "equal footing" and did not seek to impose their will on others. The election of relative moderate Hassan Rouhani as president earlier this year opened a diplomatic window to try to untangle the decade-long deadlock that has at times edged towards conflict in the Middle East. "This past summer, our people chose constructive engagement through the ballot box, and through this, they gave the world a historic opportunity to change course," Zarif said in the video posted online with subtitles in several languages. "To seize this unique opportunity, we need to accept an equal footing and choose a path based on mutual respect," added Zarif, who heads Iran's delegation at the Geneva talks. The goal is an interim deal to allow time to negotiate a comprehensive, permanent agreement that would provide assurances to the six powers that Iran's atomic program will not eventually produce bombs. Iran denies that it wants to develop a nuclear weapons capability and insists its program is limited to the peaceful generation of electricity and medical research. The November 7-9 round of talks stumbled over Iran's insistence that its right to enrich uranium be explicitly recognized in the draft text, and demands from the French delegation that the Arak heavy-water reactor be shut down. Earlier on Tuesday, Iranian parliamentarians gathered signatures to demand the government continue enriching uranium to levels of 20 percent and finish building the Arak reactor, which is a feared potential producer of bomb-grade plutonium. "RIGHT TO ENRICH" Rouhani has repeatedly said Iran will never give up its right to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, a message the Islamic Republic's parliament, dominated by conservatives, appears to want to hold him to. "On the eve of the Geneva talks, we plan to approve such a proposal in parliament. Based on that, the government is obliged to protect the nuclear rights of Iran in the forthcoming negotiations," Mehr news agency quoted member of parliament Fatemeh Alia as saying. Another MP, Mehdi Mousavinejad, said the measure would require the government to maintain enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, complete the nuclear fuel cycle and finish construction of the Arak

reactor. While it has limited powers in Iran's complex political system, parliament would likely vote on any nuclear deal. However, it would be very unlikely to go against the wishes of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Rouhani's approach to the talks, which he says is the best way to get sanctions hobbling Iran's oil-based economy lifted, has Khamenei's public backing. Rouhani succeeded hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in August. Iranian political figures have lined up to accuse France of jeopardizing chances to reach a deal after Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius warned against accepting "a fool's game" - that is, what he considered lopsided concessions to Tehran. On Monday, French President Francois Hollande set out a tough stance during a visit to Israel, saying he would not give way on nuclear proliferation with respect to Iran. His remarks came in for criticism on Tuesday from an Iranian parliamentary official. "We advise the president of France to comment on the basis of facts, not assumptions, and beyond that, not to be the executor of the Zionist regime's (Israel's) plan," Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the assembly's national security and foreign affairs committee, told Iran's official news agency. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pressed Iran on Monday to finalise an agreement proving to the world its nuclear work is peaceful but said he had "no specific expectations" for this week's Geneva talks.

Iran deal coming, but diplomatic capital is key - recent developments key Jahn 13
"Deal Closer: Iran Concedes on Right to Enrich" GEORGE JAHN; Associated Press; November 19, 2013 http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/deal-closer-iran-concedes-enrich20934263?singlePage=true Since the start of talks on Iran's nuclear program, Iran has asserted it has a right to enrich uranium and the United States has disagreed. Both have refused to budge over nearly a decade of negotiations. Until now. Iran has suddenly gone public with a significant concession just days ahead of a new round of talks with six world powers later this week in Geneva. It still insists that it has a right to the program, but it now says that the six no longer need to publicly acknowledge its claim, opening a way to sidestep the dispute and focus on more practical steps both sides can agree on. It is the latest sign of Iran's new pragmatic approach to the nuclear issue. Tehran is unlikely to ever completely stop enrichment. But by dropping a demand that makes no practical difference, it can move on to its most pressing concern; an easing of sanctions crippling its economy. Less than two months ago, President Hassan Rouhani conditioned any agreement on recognition by the United States and its allies of such a right. But with both sides hoping to seal a deal at meetings that start Wednesday, Tehran tweaked its message Sunday. Tehran's right of enrichment remains "nonnegotiable," Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted as saying by the semi-official ISNA news agency. "But (we) see no necessity for its recognition as a right." Despite previous signs that Iran is ready to compromise under the moderate Rouhani, such a major shift is a surprise. Former U.S. State Department official Mark Fitzpatrick calls it a "very significant development, representing a key concession by Iran and a way to overcome a major hurdle to a deal." It's unlikely that Rouhani acted without seeking approval from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But the change is sure to add to concern among skeptics in Tehran fearful that Iran may be giving away too much for too little in return and increase pressure on Iran's negotiators to show otherwise. Fitzpatrick, who now is a director at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, says he expects Iranian hard-liners "to raise hell about it." Enrichment is a hot-button issue because it can be used both to make reactor fuel and to arm nuclear missiles. Iran argues it is enriching only for power, and scientific and medical purposes. And it says it has no interest in nuclear arms. But Washington and its allies point to Tehran's earlier efforts to hide enrichment

and allege it worked on developing such weapons. Gary Samore, part of the U.S. negotiating team with Iran until earlier this year, describes the dispute over Iran's claimed right as being "at the heart of the nuclear negotiations for the past decade." In an article for "Foreign Affairs," he says that with no court authorized to interpret the nuances of the 1970 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which grants the right to nuclear power for peaceful purposes but doesn't specifically mention the right to enrichment it will remain "impossible to resolve the legal question."

ME Focus Now
Mideast focus Hammond 13
Iranian breakthrough and Obama foreign policy success Andrew Hammond; former US Analyst at Oxford Analytica, and a Special Adviser in the Government of Tony Blair; November 28, 2013 http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/11/28/iranian-breakthrough-and-obama-foreign-policysuccess/ The landmark Iranian deal, combined with continued uncertainty in Syria and Egypt, has refocused Washingtons attention towards the Middle East in a manner unanticipated by Obama only a few months ago. In addition, the administration has spent significant political capital resuming Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Legacy
Iran is key to Obamas legacy Shapiro 13
Obama Shifts To Foreign Policy Goals During Second Term ARI SHAPIRO November 18, 2013 http://www.npr.org/2013/11/18/245847591/obama-aims-to-accomplish-foreign-policy-goalsduring-2nd-term So a legacy-defining deal with Iran is far from a sure thing. Iran expert Cliff Kupchan of the Eurasia Group puts the chances slightly above 50 percent. He says if this does happen, it could profoundly shape history's view of Obama. "A success in Iran would in effect create a trilogy: Afghanistan, Iraq [and] Iran," Kupchan says. "I think Iran would be central to it , though. In the first two cases he cleaned up someone else's mess, he ended other people's wars. Here, his sanctions and diplomacy would have led to his success." It's a tantalizing hope for the White House and one that plays into a sunny West Wing narrative for the region that includes Syria giving up its chemical weapons and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process moving forward for the first time in years.

Legacy Hammond 13
Iranian breakthrough and Obama foreign policy success Andrew Hammond; former US Analyst at Oxford Analytica, and a Special Adviser in the Government of Tony Blair; November 28, 2013 http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/11/28/iranian-breakthrough-and-obama-foreign-policysuccess/ Intensified US focus on the Middle East has accentuated a shift, common to many recent reelected presidents, of increased focus on foreign policy in second terms. In part, this reflects the fact that presidents often see foreign policy as key to the legacy they wish to build. For instance, after the 2001 terrorist attacks, George W. Bush sought to spread his freedom agenda across the Middle East. Bill Clinton also devoted significant time to trying to secure an IsraeliPalestinian peace deal.

Priority
Iran is the priority Brownstein 13
Why Obama Has Room to Maneuver on Iran Ronald Brownstein November 29, 2013 http://www.nationaljournal.com/political-connections/why-obama-has-room-to-maneuver-oniran-20131129 A war-weary public is willing to cut the president some slack on diplomatic initiatives. But it's not willing to do so on his domestic priorities. The top domestic and foreign policy priorities likely to dominate the remainder of President Obama's term underscore how much the choices of even the world's most powerful person are shaped by the conditions he inherits. The political environment Obama inherited on foreign policy is expanding his running room as he pursues a nuclear-disarmament deal with Iran, now his top international priority .

Link / UQ

Domestic Failure Link (Winners Win)

Lack of congressional success is motivating Obamas shift to foreign policy Shapiro 13
Obama Shifts To Foreign Policy Goals During Second Term ARI SHAPIRO November 18, 2013 http://www.npr.org/2013/11/18/245847591/obama-aims-to-accomplish-foreign-policy-goalsduring-2nd-term Historian Julian Zelizer of Princeton says one reason foreign policy often moves to the front burner in a second term is that domestic policy goals become much harder to reach. " Even after re-election, presidents don't have that same kind of enthusiasm behind them in the next four years ," Zelizer says. " Congress is often much more willing to cause problems for a president on the domestic front. They're just not as scared of him ." That's certainly true of President Obama. His gun bill fell to a filibuster in the Senate, immigration seems stuck in the House and pretty much everyone in Congress has panned the way his health care plan rolled out. "I think foreign policy just isn't as much under the control of Congress, so there's always that opportunity even when things get very stifled for second-term presidents," he says.

Obamas focus abroad is because of his inability to work with congress plan changes that Feldmann 13
Is Obama already a lame-duck president? (+video) Linda Feldmann; Staff writer; December 2, 2013 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/1202/Is-Obama-already-a-lame-duckpresident-video WASHINGTON The L word as in lame, followed by duck is already creeping into the conversation on President Obamas second-term woes. The disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov, followed by the flap over canceled policies and other effects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), means Mr. Obama will spend the rest of his presidency trying to prove the law can or will work. That distracts from efforts toward new accomplishments, be it immigration reform or a long-term budget deal or climate change. The Obamacare mess has also sent the presidents job approval ratings and personal popularity south, depleting his political capital and harming Democrats prospects in the 2014 midterms particularly in the Senate, where Democratic control is in jeopardy. And in perhaps the final sign that Obama may be sliding toward lame-duckery, political media have been obsessed by the 2016 presidential race almost since the moment Obama was reelected. Hillary Rodham Clinton practically has the Democratic nomination locked up without even announcing, if the prevailing narrative is to be believed. And New Jerseys voluble Republican governor, Chris Christie, has sent clear signals hes running, setting up a delicious potential matchup. That last point might say more about the media than about presidential politics, though in the modern era, its not too soon to be strategizing about the next race. Still, the early rumblings of 2016 are a sideshow compared with the present challenge of being president. And for Obama, analysts say, despite the rough rollout of the ACA, theres plenty of juice left in his presidency especially with more than three years to go. It has to do with the inherent powers of the presidency, says Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Between now and the 20th of January 2017, there will be many opportunities for him to do things, even if Congress doesnt cooperate. Obama has shown clear willingness to use executive power to effect policy without Congress. Examples

include changes to the ACA, actions on firearms, limits on greenhouse gases, changes to IRS rules that affect political action committees, and deferring deportation of young illegal immigrants. The president has held back on taking other executive actions, despite pressure from activists, especially on gay rights and broader immigration reform. That hesitancy likely signals a desire to keep working with Congress on those matters, bringing more public buy-in and the ability to institute more sweeping reform. The White House is putting out the word that Obama is keeping his powder dry on issues like comprehensive immigration reform and expanded background checks on guns, two initiatives that ran aground in Congress this year. The president takes a long view of things, White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri told MSNBC on Monday. We made a lot of progress in this past year on those issues, and well continue to push it as long as it takes through the rest of the presidency. Still, theres no sign that Congresss intense polarization is about to change anytime soon. Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reids recent deployment of the nuclear option, changing the rules of confirmation, should make it easier for Obama to seat many new judges and executive branch nominees, though the move infuriated Republicans and could lead to other blocking tactics. What second-term Obama is experiencing isnt all that different from what many other presidents have faced after starting their second four years. They do run into second-term blues, says Jim Guth, a political scientist at Furman University in South Carolina. Of course, the question is whether the president can recover. Some do and some dont. Obamas predecessor, George W. Bush, didnt. Soon after taking his second oath of office, the public went sour on the Iraq War and Mr. Bushs job approval tanked. His big second-term initiative, introducing private accounts into Social Security, never got off the ground. Hurricane Katrina sealed Bushs fate. In contrast, President Reagan was able to bring his public support back up after the Iran-Contra scandal; in his final year in office, his job approval averaged 53 percent, according to Gallup. Obamas current average of major polls is 40 percent. One of the things Reagan had going for him was that the economy was doing better, says Mr. Guth. Obama may have that working for him as well. In other words, Its the economy, stupid Democratic strategist James Carvilles rallying cry in the 1992 election still applies. And what has come to be a scandal of incompetence with the botched rollout of HealthCare.gov will, in time, start to feel like old news, assuming the sites performance continues to improve. Perhaps the biggest question hanging over Obamas presidency is how the rest of the ACA will unfold and how it will affect the existing health-care system. Protecting the increasingly unpopular ACA may end up being the biggest project of his second term. But in the meantime, Obama is also making headway on the longstanding issue of Irans nuclear program, with an i nterim accord that freezes key aspects in exchange for temporary relief on some economic sanctions. If that deal ends up being productive, it would prove the maxim that second-term presidents look overseas for their successes .

Domestic failures Hammond 13

Iranian breakthrough and Obama foreign policy success Andrew Hammond; former US Analyst at Oxford Analytica, and a Special Adviser in the Government of Tony Blair; November 28, 2013 http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/11/28/iranian-breakthrough-and-obama-foreign-policysuccess/ As well as legacy-building, the likelihood of Obama concentrating more on foreign policy also reflects domestic US politics. In particular, the intense polarisation and gridlock of Washington. Since re-election, Obama has achieved little domestic policy success. His gun

control bill was defeated, immigration reform faces significant opposition in the Republicancontrolled House of Representatives, and the prospect of a long-term budgetary grand bargain with Congress looks unlikely. Moreover, implementation of his landmark healthcare initiative has been botched. Many re-elected presidents in the post-war era have, like Obama, found it difficult to acquire domestic policy momentum. In part, this is because the party of reelected presidents, as with the Democrats now, often hold a weaker position in Congress. Thus Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, Richard Nixon in 1972, and Clinton in 1996 were all re-elected alongside Congresses where both the House and Senate were controlled by their partisan opponents. Another factor encouraging enhanced focus on foreign policy, which Congress has less latitude over than domestic policy, in second terms is the fact that re-elected presidents have often been impacted by scandals in recent decades. For instance, Watergate ended the Nixon administration in 1974, and the Lewinsky scandal led to Clinton being impeached. Since Obamas re-election, a series of domestic problems have hit the administration. These include revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted some conservative groups for special scrutiny; and the Department of Justices secret subpoenaing of private phone records of several Associated Press reporters and editors in the wake of a terrorist plot leak. Even if Obama escapes further significant problems, he will not be able to avoid the lame-duck factor. That is, as a president cannot seek more than two terms, domestic political focus will refocus elsewhere, particularly after the November 2014 congressional ballots when the 2016 presidential election campaign kicks into gear. Taken overall, the Iranian breakthrough and wider events in the Middle East are therefore likely to accentuate Obamas focus on foreign policy in his remaining period of office as he seeks a presidential legacy. And, this shift is only likely to be reinforced if, as anticipated, the US economic recovery continues to build up steam in 2014.

DC K2 Israel
Diplomatic capital key to pacifying Israel IRD 13
Israeli leaders voice objections to Irans possible nuclear deal Nov 9, 2013 http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/en/page/1924244/Israeli+leaders+voice+objections+to+Iran%E2%80 %99s+possible+nuclear+deal.html The angry Israeli response threatened a return to the more tumultuous U.S.-Israeli relationship that characterized much of Obamas first term. Tensions between the two countries had improved during the presidents second term, and much of the animosity between him and Netanyahu was seen to have faded. Kerry, too, has invested significant diplomatic capital in advancing peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians . The renewed tensions over Iran threatened to undermine the goodwill inspired by the U.S.brokered peace talks and increase congressional pressure on Obama to do more for Israel. The United States and Israel are in complete agreement about the need to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, White House deputy press secretary Joshua Earnest said Friday. The Israelis have expressed their serious concerns because of the threat that Iran having a nuclear weapon would pose to their nations security, Earnest said. The nation of Israel is a close ally of the United States, so we obviously are concerned about their security, too. U.S. officials have argued strenuously to Israel and its supporters that the deal would be the best way to test Irans commitment to defusing the nuclear threat and that the Obama administration stands ready to increase sanctions if the Islamic republic reneges on the deal . The top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Eliot L. Engel (N.Y.), tried to give Obama the benefit of the doubt Friday. While I support the presidents efforts to engage with Iran, I am deeply troubled by reports that such an agreement may not require Tehran to halt its enrichment efforts, said Engel, a strong congressional backer of Israel. If Iran intends to show good faith during these talks, it must at a minimum abide by United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for a halt to enrichment. The committees chairman, Rep. Edward R. Royce (R-Calif.), announced a hearing on the proposed deal next week. Instead of toughening sanctions to get meaningful and lasting concessions, the Obama administration looks to be settling for interim and reversible steps, Royce warned. The Senate banking committee is readying new sanctions legislation, but the panels chairman, Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), said he would await clarity on the negotiations in Geneva before deciding on when to move ahead. The proposed Iran deal was structured in part to address Israeli and congressional concerns that Iran would be rewarded too richly by sanctions being removed before its ability to quickly make a nuclear bomb was destroyed or mothballed. But in an interview Thursday with The Washington Post, Netanyahu compared lifting sanctions to puncturing a tire. It is very hard to get the air back into the tire, Netanyahu said, adding that once sanctions are eased, it will be difficult or impossible to put together a coalition with the grit to enforce them again. A prominent member of Netanyahus cabinet, Minister of Economy Naftali Bennett, went further Friday. Either the world insists that sanctions stay in place until Iran dismantles its centrifuges, or it settles for a deal that will allow Iran to ultimately continue its nuclear program, Bennett said. Imagining an Iran with nuclear weapons, Bennett said, Years from now, when an Islamic terrorist blows up a suitcase in New York, or when Iran launches a nuclear missile at Rome or Tel Aviv, it will have happened only because a bad deal was made during these defining moments. The tense meeting Friday morning between Kerry and Netanyahu was a

last-minute effort to reassure the Israeli leader before Kerry flew to Switzerland. But the Israeli leader left little doubt that the fate of the Palestinian talks is linked to the outcome of negotiations with Iran.

Diplomatic capital is key to preventing an Israeli unilateral strike Brunnstrom 13

U.S. assures Israel that core Iran sanctions still in place David Brunnstrom; Reuters; December 5, 2013 http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-assures-israel-core-iran-sanctions-still-place114539339.html Israel's fierce opposition about the Geneva deal have raised speculation - fuelled by regular public hints from Netanyahu - that it might carry out long-threatened unilateral strikes against Iran. But while Israel is widely assumed to have the region's only nuclear arsenal, many independent analysts believe it lacks the conventional clout to deliver lasting damage to the distant, dispersed and well-defended Iranian facilities. The Israelis are also unlikely to go it alone as their most important foreign partner is engaged in diplomacy with Tehran. Hoping to stay Israel's hand, the Americans have invested heavily in its strategic defenses. Kerry said that during his visit he hoped to tour Palmahim air base, near Tel Aviv, where Israel's command-and-control centre for the Arrow ballistic missile interceptor and other systems is located. "I want to see first-hand the remarkable ballistic missile defense technologies in place that our nation has spent over 20 years building with our friends here in Israel," he said. "The advancement of these programs in recent years, I think, is a reflection of President Obama's and his administration's strong commitment, unwavering commitment to Israel's security ."

Unilateral Strike Scenario

Israel will strike Iran in May if diplomacy before then fails Lendman 13
Provoking Iran Stephen Lendman 11-30-13 http://rense.com/general96/provo.html US/Israeli saber rattling is planned. On November 27, Time magazine reported it. " Israel and US to Hold Military Exercises When Iran Deal Ends ," it headlined. According to an anonymous "high-ranking Israeli officer:" "The strategic decision is to continue to make noise." It'll come to a head in six months . It's when the interim agreement expires. It's renewable by mutual consent. It remains to be seen what happens. " In May ," said the Israeli source, " there's going to be a joint training exercise. It's going to be big ." "The wind from the Americans into the Israeli sails is, 'We will maintain our capability to strike in Iran, and one of the ways we show it is to train.' " "It will send signals both to Israel and to the Iranians that we are maintaining our capabilities in the military option." "The atmosphere is we have to do it big time. We have to do a big show of capabilities and connections." Washington and Israel hold lots of joint war games. They're strategically timed. They send messages to adversaries of both countries. According to Time: "(F)ull-throated US participation in a May 2014 joint exercise would stand in especially vivid contrast to what transpired in the last large joint exercise: Washington quietly scaled back its level of participation, amid fears that Israel was growing too bold." Its threats to attack Iran unilaterally ring hollow. For now, diplomacy gets room to work . According to the anonymous Israeli source: "The focus will be to gather intelligence in order to reveal a fraud, and not to (do it) for an attack." "At the same time, Israel shows signs of working to rehabilitate the military option ," said Time. Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Securities (INSS) maintains close ties to Israel's government and military. Many of its professionals have government and/or IDF backgrounds. Retired Major General Amos Yadlin heads INSS. Israel helps fund it. On October 3, it published a report titled "If Attacked, How Would Iran Respond?" It suggests the threat of major Iranian retaliation is exaggerated. It believes a regional war is unlikely. It may be wishful thinking on both counts. Yadlin voiced qualified support for Geneva. Israel has time to explore options, he said. He was a pilot in June 1981. He was involved in destroying Iraq's Osirik nuclear reactor. It was under construction at the time. He believes Israel can strike Iranian nuclear facilities successfully. It can handle the blowback, he believes. Yiftah Shapir is an INSS research fellow. Israeli plans to strike Iran are longstanding, he said. " Many people have been working on this option for many, many years, and I don't think they can think of anything else ," he stressed. Israel has formidable weapons. It has nuclear, chemical and biological ones. It has long-range fighter-bombers and missiles. It has deep-penetrating bunker busters. It has other sophisticated US supplied weapons and technology. It developed its own. It has a longstanding history of belligerence. So does America. Geneva temporarily constrains things. At issue is for how long? Washington and Israel deplore peace. They prioritize conflict and instability. It serves their mutual interests. Current Netanyahu bluster is red meat for loyal constituents. Rhetoric lacks credibility.

Actions alone matter . Israel and Washington have longstanding plans to attack Iran. They can be implemented straightaway if ordered. Not now. Maybe later . Giving peace a chance isn't in the vocabulary of either country. How long diplomacy takes precedence bears close watching .

AT Congress blocks
Successful diplomacy ensures congressional cooperation, failure ensures war Abadi 13
How Congress Could Derail a Nuclear Deal With Iran Cameron Abadi November 25, 2013 http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-25/how-congress-could-derail-a-nuclear-dealwith-iran When Secretary of State John Kerry joined the nuclear negotiations at the Intercontinental Hotel in Geneva last Saturday, he employed the oldest negotiating trick in the book, evoking Congress as the bad cop to the Obama administrations good cop. Kerry told Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif that if they failed to reach an agreement that day, the Obama administration would be unable to prevent Congress from passing additional sanctions against Iran. Less than 24 hours later, Kerry and Zarif walked into the hotel lobby to announce that they had struck a deal to freeze Irans nuclear program temporarily. In the face of criticism from members of Congress and U.S. allies in the Middle East, administration officials have insisted that the Geneva agreement is just the first step toward a more far-reaching disarmament deal. But such a deal will require that the Obama administration promise not just to forestall the imposition of new sanctions, but also to reduce dramatically the sanctions already in place. And that depends on the cooperation of a Congress that has been singularly uninterested in assuming the role of good cop in the showdown with Iran. The White House has some discretion to rescind the Iran sanctions without Congresss approval. The method for removing any given set of sanctions depends on how those sanctions were passed in the first place. If theyre the product of an executive order, as many of the existing sanctions against Iran are, removing them requires only that the White House decide to stop enforcing them. Thats exactly how the administration will be making good on its promise to Iran, as part of last weeks interim agreement, to restore access to $7 billion held in foreign bank accounts. STORY: How Much More Oil Does Iran Get to Sell? Removing sanctions that have been passed into law by Congress, however, is a much more difficult challenge. Despite the partisan gridlock in Washington over the past several years, bipartisan majorities have managed to cooperate on three separate rounds of sanctions since 2010, including measures targeting Irans central bank, which Iran will undoubtedly want rescinded. Removing those laws from the books will force the White House to go through Congress all over again. That will require overcoming the partisanship and procedural hurdles that have consumed Congress in recent years . More challenging still, it will require confronting the many members of Congress who harbor goals for the nuclear negotiations that diverge sharply from the goals of the White House. Although last weeks interim agreement essentially concedes that Iran will maintain an enrichment program in any future compromise, many members of Congress have declared that Iran cannot be trusted with any nuclear capabilities at all. Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who co-sponsored the most recent round of sanctions to pass Congress, has been particularly blunt. How do you define an Iranian moderate? he said recently. Thats an Iranian whos out of bullets and money. In responding to the Geneva deal, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) declared: There is now an even more urgent need for Congress to increase sanctions until Iran completely abandons its enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. VIDEO: Why Are There So Many Critics of the Iran Deal? To the extent that this remains simple grandstanding, it neednt interrupt the ongoing negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear agreement. But the danger is that Congress could

seek to pass new legislation setting conditions on future negotiations and on the eventual removal of sanctions. A bipartisan congressional group is pushing a bill that would automatically impose new sanctions against Iran if it fails to agree to a comprehensive deal during the six-month duration of the existing interim agreement. The law may also seek to define in advance the boundaries of an acceptable comprehensive agreement. It wouldnt be the first time that Congress tried to reduce the Obama administrations flexibility. Earlier this year, Kirk drafted legislation that would have severed the tie between sanctions and the nuclear program by keeping them in place until the Government of Iran has released all political prisoners, is transitioning to a free and democratically elected government, and is protecting the rights and freedoms of all citizens of Iran, including women and minorities. But the international stakes are now higher than theyve ever been. Which is why the White Houses biggest foreign-policy priority is selling its Iran policy at home . Dennis Ross, Obamas former adviser on Iran, says that if the administration does finalize a comprehensive deal with Iran, it will immediately have to make the case that there is no other diplomatic alternative. Those on the Hill who disagree would then be forced to make the case for war, Ross says. I want to see who would say at that point, No, thats not good enough . VIDEO: How Would Iran Make a Nuclear Bomb? The bottom line: The White House doesnt have the power to lift all sanctions on Iran and will need cooperation from Congress.

Obama can manage domestic politics to accomplish Iranian diplomacy Brownstein 13

Why Obama Has Room to Maneuver on Iran Ronald Brownstein November 29, 2013 http://www.nationaljournal.com/political-connections/why-obama-has-room-to-maneuver-oniran-20131129 Obama has room to maneuver on the nuclear initiative not because Americans trust the new Iranian government, or the president's diplomatic skills, or are particularly confident that diplomacy will succeed. Obama's advantage, rather, is that the alternative has been discredited. Amid widespread disillusionment over the American military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama is benefiting from the shattered public belief that American force can pacify the Middle East. That's the key new element in a debate that otherwise settled quickly into familiar grooves after the agreement last weekend with Iran to curb its nuclear program in return for a temporary relaxation in economic sanctions. Since the U.S. and five other powers concluded the deal with Iran, conservative critics have besieged Obama with accusations that he is naive and weak, complete with the inevitable references to Munich and appeasement of Nazi Germany before World War II. Plenty of congressional Democrats, plus key Mideast allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, are leery (if not openly hostile), too. Obama can't ignore this crossfire. But the odds remain high that he can contain it and advance negotiations long enough to test whether Iran is genuinely willing to shelve its nuclear program (a question that remains very much unanswered as longer-term talks begin). The failure of George W. Bush's attempt to transform the Middle East through American-led force has provided Obama more leeway to pursue an approach more modest in both means and ends: diplomacy that aims, in a fashion George Kennan would recognize, more to avoid the worst outcomes with Iran than to achieve the ideal. While polls show that Americans would ultimately use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the bipartisan congressional and public recoil against military action in Syria this fall probably offers a more revealing picture of the nation's mood after Afghanistan and Iraq. "I think from the public's

standpoint, we are back to where we were in the mid-1970s [after Vietnam]," said Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. "That skepticism about overseas involvement in general and military involvement in particular is going to last for some years now ." And that means most Americans are likely to give Obama a long rope on diplomacy before they conclude force is the only option left for deterring Iran. If the public mood Obama inherited has broadened his opportunities in Iran, it has constrained him on health care. From the start, the debate over the health care law has unfolded in an atmosphere of pervasive skepticism about government. When Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare in 1965, more than three-fifths of Americans said they trusted Washington to usually do the right thing; in the decades since, scandal, war, and economic struggle steadily corroded that number, to around one in four by the time Obama passed the health reform law in 2010. (After three more years of economic stagnation and political gridlock, those numbers have fallen still further.) That's the sheer wall of skepticism, especially among whites, that Obama must scale to build support for expanding government's role in health care. Since taking office, Obama has made the case for activist government more aggressively than Bill Clinton did. But Obama never formulated a clear strategy for rebuilding trust in Washington. On the one hand, he didn't focus as much as Clinton did on reforms (like work for welfare recipients or shrinking the federal workforce) that might reassure skeptical voters about government's capacity and efficiency. On the other, he (correctly) discarded as politically unrealistic bright-line transformative ideas such as singlepayer health care or breaking up big banks. That vastly increased his chances of passing legislation but meant that even his successes (like health care and financial reform) produced programs of dizzying intricacy that require government to "thread the needle" between contending interests, as Yale University political scientist Stephen Skowronek says. "You can't mobilize around these things. They are just problem-solving." The health law's difficulties show the vulnerabilities inherent in such precariously constructed enterprises. Obamacare's early struggles don't guarantee its collapse; it is already gaining momentum in some key blue states. But the program's troubles and complexity make it more likely to deepen than dispel public doubts about Washington. With success in Iran, Obama could solidify a shift in public opinion (from force to diplomacy) already moving toward him. But unless he stabilizes his health care plan, Obama will bequeath the next president even greater suspicion of Washington than he inherited.

AT Unilateral Strike
Unilateral strike wont happen domestic Israeli politics Kaye 13
A different Israeli take on Iran Dalia Dassa Kaye; director of the Center for Middle East Public Policy at Rand Corp; Nov 14, 2013 http://irdiplomacy.ir/en/page/1924513/A+different+Israeli+take+on+Iran.html But from Netanyahu's perspective, the only acceptable deal with Iran is one that completely dismantles all of Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities. Most Western analysts view that goal as unrealistic, and a number of prominent security voices in Israel have taken views that differ from Netanyahu's maximalist stance. Take, for instance, Amos Yadlin, a former chief of Israel's military intelligence agency who now heads of one of Israel's top strategic think tanks. He and others would prefer a deal that leaves Iran with no remaining enrichment capabilities. But they also see as "reasonable" a deal that might allow for some limited enrichment capabilities at reduced levels, accompanied by intrusive inspections that would make it harder and costlier for Iran to cheat. These basic requirements are likely to be key to any final negotiated deal that the Americans and their European partners would accept before lifting significant sanctions, particularly those multilaterally imposed on Iran's oil and banking sectors. Israelis no doubt expect the United States to bargain hard and to live up to President Obama's commitment to prevent the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran. Yet not all Israelis are as distrustful of Obama as Netanyahu appears to be. David Menashri, one of Israel's leading Iran experts, argued recently that if the United States and Iran come to a deal, "it's not going to be against the interests of the state of Israel, and I know many people in Israel understand that." Dan Meridor, a longtime Likud Party leader and former Cabinet member in Netanyahu's government, has cautioned against immediately rejecting the new openings with Iran and denying the United States time to explore a deal. Efraim Halevy, former chief of Israel's Mossad spy agency, has also argued for giving diplomacy a chance, even if he and many others in Israel remain doubtful that a deal is likely. Netanyahu's stridency has also faced criticism at home because of concerns that his positions might isolate Israel and undermine its legitimate concerns about Iran's nuclear program. Dan Gillerman, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, warned that it was very dangerous for Netanyahu to be viewed as "the only naysayer and warmonger." It did not go unnoticed that Israel was the only one of 193 member states to walk out on Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's recent United Nations' speech, an act that Netanyahu's finance minister criticized as "reminiscent of the way Arab states behave toward Israel." Finally, while many in Israel's security establishment are critical of Obama's regional policies, few would favor a rupture in U.S.-Israeli relations over an Iran deal. With all of the challenges facing Israel today, maintaining strong relations with the United States is still a key pillar of Israeli security, and the Israeli public will have a low tolerance for any leader who threatens that. Unfortunately, Netanyahu's persistent criticism of Rouhani and hostile stance toward diplomacy with Iran are overshadowing the voices of many in Israel who have the stature and security credentials to present a different narrative to the Israeli and American people. The alternative narrative is not dovish, and it includes a hard-nosed assessment of Israeli security needs and a strong degree of skepticism over Iranian intentions. But it also recognizes that Israel may be doing itself harm by rejecting diplomacy so categorically. The most strident voices in Israel may be the loudest at the moment, but it's

important to remember that many Israelis believe they should give the Americans a chance to strike a deal that would benefit Israel and effectively put a halt to Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. And they believe such a deal would be far preferable to the alternatives: a military strike or the acceptance of Iran as a nuclear weapons state. As these difficult negotiations continue, Americans need to hear more from such Israeli voices to better understand the complex landscape in Israel when it comes to Iran.

Polls prove HP 12
10:54 AM 03/ 9/2012 Yet another poll finds Israelis oppose unilateral strike on Iran. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/israel-wont-warn-usbefor_n_1305601.html#147_yet-another-poll-finds-israelis-oppose-unilateral-strike-on-iran
Approximately 70 percent of Israelis believe such an attack would be ineffective in stopping Irans nuclearization for a substantial time and approximately 60 percent think that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is underestimating in his assessment that an Iranian retaliatory strike will cause about 500 Israeli casualties. The Guttman Centers findings fall in line with a series of recent polls on Israeli public opinion. A

Haaretz poll released yesterday found that 58 percent of Israelis oppose an strike on Iran without U.S. backing. And a University of Maryland poll last month showed that only 19 percent of Israelis support an attack without U.S. backing.