Obama, Netanyahu on collision course 6 years in the making
JULIE PACE, Associated Press
MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — For six years, President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been on a collision course over how to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions, a high-stakes endeavor both men see as a centerpiece of their legacies.

The coming weeks will put the relationship between their countries, which otherwise remain stalwart allies, to one of its toughest tests.

Netanyahu is bound for Washington for an address to Congress on Tuesday aimed squarely at derailing Obama's cherished bid for a diplomatic deal with Tehran. At the same time, Secretary of State John Kerry and other international negotiators will be in Switzerland for talks with the Iranians, trying for a framework agreement before a late March deadline.

In between are Israel's elections March 17, which have heightened the political overtones of Netanyahu's visit to Washington.

The prime minister is speaking to Congress at the request of Republicans. His visit was coordinated without the Obama administration's knowledge, deepening tensions between two leaders who have never shown much affection for each other.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the liberal Jewish advocacy group J Street, said Netanyahu was "crossing some lines that haven't been crossed before and is putting Israel into the partisan crossfire in a way it has not been before."

But the largest pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has tried to play down the partisanship.

"AIPAC welcomes the prime minister's speech to Congress and we believe that this is a very important address," spokesman Marshall Wittmann said. "We have been actively encouraging senators and representatives to attend and we have received an overwhelmingly positive response from both sides of the aisle."

Nearly a dozen Democratic lawmakers plan to sit out Netanyahu's speech, calling it an affront to the president.

Stopping Iran from building a nuclear bomb has become a defining challenge for both Obama and Netanyahu, yet one they have approached far differently.

For Obama, getting Iran to verifiably prove it is not pursuing nuclear weapons would be a bright spot in a foreign policy arena in which numerous outcomes are uncertain and would validate his early political promise to negotiate with Iran without conditions.

Netanyahu considers unacceptable any deal with Iran that doesn't end its nuclear program entirely and opposes the diplomatic pursuit as one that minimizes what he considers an existential threat to Israel.

Tehran says its nuclear program is peaceful and exists only to produce energy for civilian use.

"Through scaremongering, falsification, propaganda and creating a false atmosphere even inside other countries, (Israel) is attempting to prevent peace," Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Saturday in Tehran.

"I believe that these attempts are in vain and should not impede reaching a (nuclear) agreement," said Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

U.S. and Iranian officials reported progress in the latest talks on a deal that would freeze Tehran's nuclear program for 10 years, but allow it to slowly ramp up in the final years of the accord.

Obama has refused to meet Netanyahu during his visit, with the White House citing its policy of not meeting with foreign leaders soon before their elections. Vice President Joe Biden and Kerry will both be out of the country on trips announced only after Netanyahu accepted the Republicans' offer to speak on Capitol Hill.

The prime minister is scheduled to speak Monday at AIPAC's annual policy conference. The Obama administration will be represented at the event by U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and national security adviser Susan Rice, who criticized Netanyahu's plans to address Congress as "destructive" to the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

The Iran dispute has heightened a relationship between the two leaders that has been frosty from the start. They lack any personal chemistry, leaving them with virtually no reservoir of goodwill to get them through their policy disagreements.

Within months of taking office, Obama irritated Israel when, in an address to the Arab world, he challenged the legitimacy of Jewish settlements on Palestinian-claimed land and cited the Holocaust as the justification for Israel's existence, not any historical Jewish tie to the land.

The White House was furious when Netanyahu's government defied Obama and announced plans to construct new housing units in East Jerusalem while Biden was visiting Israel in 2010. Additional housing plans that year upended U.S. efforts to restart peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.

The tension between Obama and Netanyahu was laid bare in an unusually public manner during an Oval Office meeting in 2011. In front of a crowd of journalists, the prime minister lectured Obama at length on Israel's history and dismissed the president's conditions for restarting peace talks.

Later that year, a microphone caught Obama telling his then-French counterpart in a private conversation that while he may be fed up with Netanyahu, "You are sick of him, but I have to work with him every day."

Despite suspecting that Netanyahu was cheering for his rival Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama tried to reset relations with the prime minister after his re-election. He made his first trip as president to Israel and the two leaders went to great lengths to put on a happy front, referring to each other by their first names and touring some of the region's holy sites together.

The healing period was to be short-lived.

Another attempt at Israeli-Palestinian peace talks collapsed. Israeli officials were withering in their criticism of Kerry, who had shepherded the talks, with the country's defense minister calling him "obsessive" and "messianic." The Obama administration returned the favor last summer with its own unusually unsparing criticism of Israel for causing civilian deaths when war broke out in Gaza.

The U.S. and Israel have hit rocky patches before.

The settlement issue has been a persistent thorn in relations, compounded by profound unhappiness in Washington over Israeli military operations in the Sinai, Iraq and Lebanon during the Ford, Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations that led those presidents to take or consider direct punitive measures. Yet through it all, the United States has remained Israel's prime benefactor, providing it with $3 billion a year in assistance and defending it from criticism at the United Nations and elsewhere.

"We have brought relations back in the past and we will do it again now because at the end of the day they are based on mutual interests," said Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and informal adviser to Netanyahu. "The interests of Israel and the U.S. are similar and sometime identical and I think that is what will determine in the end and not feelings of one kind or another."

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-01

Barack Obama. Trying to make nice with people who hate and want to kill Americans while he screws over his country's closest allies.

What an idiot.

Stopping Obama from allowing Iran to get nukes is a lot more important than partisan politics. He gives more respect to Islamic dictators than one of our closest allies.

Stopping Obama from allowing Iran to get nukes is a lot more important than partisan politics. He gives more respect to Islamic dictators than one of our closest allies.

What an unbelievably partisan post. 'Stopping Obama from allowing Iran to get nukes'? I think the goal is to stop Iran from getting Nukes, not stopping Obama...

Oh, wait, for you, yes, it may be about stopping Obama.

Netanyahu and Obama are not the only ones on a collision course here.

It might be a good idea if the Republicans made up their mind what they want beside to eliminate Obama. The whole situation is beginning to sound a little like Thailand's effort to eradicate someone from politics and history.

It's mind boggling how childish this all is.

Stopping Obama from allowing Iran to get nukes is a lot more important than partisan politics. He gives more respect to Islamic dictators than one of our closest allies.

What an unbelievably partisan post. 'Stopping Obama from allowing Iran to get nukes'? I think the goal is to stop Iran from getting Nukes, not stopping Obama...

You obviously have not been paying much attention to the news, but that does not stop you from commenting anyway.

Amid reports that the emerging nuclear deal between the P5+1 nations and Iran would reportedly allow Iran to keep 6,500 centrifuges operating, a former CIA deputy director who served under President Obama has stated that this number is sufficient for Iran to build a nuclear weapons program.

Michael Morell, now an analyst for CBS news, made those comments on the Charlie Rose show last week. Morell’s statement was analyzed by the fact-checking website Politifact on Wednesday.

http://www.thetower.org/1686-obamas-former-deputy-cia-director-emerging-iran-deal-leaves-enough-centrifuges-for-nuke/

Anything that weakens the pro-Israel lobby in Washington is to be welcomed and applauded.

Israeli has no faith in the complex negotiations under way between Iran and the US (along with its five partners) to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. It pushes for greater sanctions on Iran knowing that—as Secretary of State John Kerry has said—additional sanctions would threaten the diplomatic path. If the nuclear talks fail, the violence that has engulfed the Middle East will only get worse and will put the US on a dangerous path to more war.

10 reasons AIPAC IS WHACK

http://www.buzzfeed.com/codepink/10-reasons-why-aipac-is-whack-1d2ad

Anything that weakens the pro-Israel lobby in Washington is to be welcomed and applauded.

Well this will likely weaken the Israeli position. Foreign powers messing in a domestic situation is not going to sit well with the US public, I think. Questioning the trustworthiness of Obama may be justified, but questioning Netanyahu is positively necessary. He is asking the US to do its dirty work.

At this juncture in time, the US has a lot to lose and Israel has nothing to lose.

Israeli has no faith in the complex negotiations under way between Iran and the US (along with its five partners) to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. It pushes for greater sanctions on Iran knowing that—as Secretary of State John Kerry has said—additional sanctions would threaten the diplomatic path. If the nuclear talks fail, the violence that has engulfed the Middle East will only get worse and will put the US on a dangerous path to more war.

You think bombing Iran would lessen the violence huh?

Questioning the trustworthiness of Obama may be justified, but questioning Netanyahu is positively necessary. He is asking the US to do its dirty work.

All he is asking is that we refuse any deal that would allow Iran to enrich uranium. That was also the US position until very recently:

"... it has always been the U.S. position that that article IV of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty does not speak about the right of enrichment at all [and] doesn't speak to enrichment, period. It simply says that you have the right to research and development. And many countries such as Japan and Germany have taken that [uranium enrichment] to be a right. But the United States does not take that position. We take the position that we look at each one of these [cases]. And more to the point, the UN Security Council has suspended Iran's enrichment until they meet their international obligations. They didn't say they have suspended their right to enrichment, they have suspended their enrichment, so we do not believe there is an inherent right by anyone to enrichment."

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/reversing-irans-nuclear-program

Off-topic post and replies removed.

Israeli has no faith in the complex negotiations under way between Iran and the US (along with its five partners) to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. It pushes for greater sanctions on Iran knowing that—as Secretary of State John Kerry has said—additional sanctions would threaten the diplomatic path. If the nuclear talks fail, the violence that has engulfed the Middle East will only get worse and will put the US on a dangerous path to more war.

You think bombing Iran would lessen the violence huh?

I don't think they need to be bombed. I think sanctions should be tough until they allow international inspectors.

I DO think that if the West allows Iran to get a nuke, the Israel will know it an hit a first strike before it actually happens.

Israel could level Iran. That could start a real war and...

Obama apparently doesn't know or care about negotiating from a position of strength.

I tend to agree with you, NeverSure. But I don't think the US should go ahead and start rattling the sabre. If/when Israel determines that Iran has the bomb, they have the capability of taking it out. There is no doubt, regardless of politics, that the US is not going to be right behind them.

The US needs to negotiate with a wider vision than Israel does. We will face repercussions from Russia and others.

The US is not Netanyahu's cattle dog and when he says 'sick 'em' boy, we don't have to do it.

The writing is on the wall ...............

Stopping Obama from allowing Iran to get nukes is a lot more important than partisan politics. He gives more respect to Islamic dictators than one of our closest allies.

What an unbelievably partisan post. 'Stopping Obama from allowing Iran to get nukes'? I think the goal is to stop Iran from getting Nukes, not stopping Obama...

Oh, wait, for you, yes, it may be about stopping Obama.

Netanyahu and Obama are not the only ones on a collision course here.

It might be a good idea if the Republicans made up their mind what they want beside to eliminate Obama. The whole situation is beginning to sound a little like Thailand's effort to eradicate someone from politics and history.

It's mind boggling how childish this all is.

Sounds partisan, doesn't it? I agree. Increasingly, those people who wish to actually save America and the West from the destructive policies of Obama and company will appear partisan but... but of course Obama is not partisan. His actions both at home and abroad consistently reflect the will of Americans and our allies. It is only those who oppose the Obama islamization of the world and at home who are partisan. If myself and others, like above, are partisan, it necessarily follows Obama et al is on the other side of the line. Obama is divisive because he is a hater. There is very little besides contempt and disdain in this man personally, and it is equally reflected in his policies. In this manner, both are vulnerable to circumspection.

Who knows what Republicans want; I personally have no use for them. But one thing is apparent, Obama's machinations, if unchecked, will destroy America and plunge the world into war. He is the most divisive, destructive and Machiavellian president to ever insinuate into leadership. If the US had a leader that even remotely approximated the nationalism of Netanyahu the future would at least have slivers of light for the US. No, none of this boggles a reasoned mind. It only seems childish when one struggles to understand the patently obvious. There is nothing remotely childish in any of this. Obama is intent on elevating a bipolar Mideast in his knuckleheaded belief that this mechanism would ensure parity and a degree of MAD, thus I presume bringing peace. His love and deflection for/of Islam is not equaled by his actual knowledge of islam. His policies with regard to Iran will backfire and leave generations of bodies. Our allies know this. Scholars know this. Analysts know this. Soldiers know this. Joe, in Des Moines, working at the mill knows this. Israelis know this, and Iran knows this. The very fact the US and the Waterboy, Kerry, are begging for a deal with a country that conducts mock nuke and conventional war drills on US targets, burns the president in effigy, and proclaims the Iranian/Islamic flag will fly over the White House handily suggests who is partisan. Hell, Obama just just give them the keys to West Point and be done with it.

There are those on the Dark Side who in their Diaries are certain in the absolute Prez Obama is Darth Vader but reading them makes it obvious that they are so far out as to be remote and irrelevant.

Benjamin Netanyahu in his political world is no different from the extremists of the right in their political world here and elsewhere, except that Netanyahu is the prime minister of a country that is at the center of the issue of war and peace. Yet Netanyahu is an extremist of the right who demands that the world stop to meet his demands and meet them unconditionally.

Netanyahu wants the P5+1 and Iran nuclear negotiations to stop permanently if necessary, to indeed fail as a preference, to go away entirely and completely, and he and his followers will stop at nothing to have their way. Period. To them, there's absolutely nothing about Iran's nuclear programs to be discussed. End of.

Yet Netanyahu and his right wing fanatics everywhere offer no alternate course to a peaceful resolution to Iran's nuclear programs. They say no deal is better than a bad deal. Their better deal is to take nuclear power and energy away from Iran 100%. This is of course, unrealistic, and therefore provocative. The reality is that there is no deal Netanyahu and the far right will accept from the P5+1 and Iran in negotiations.

And Netanyahu with the rest of the hard core far right offer no peaceful alternative to no deal. None.

Why Benjamin Netanyahu Lost His Mind

By Jonathan Chait

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in one of his trademark gestures of narcissistic venality, decided to set up an address to the United States Congress without notifying the executive branch of the American government.

Netanyahu’s behavior might be best understood as the expression of a kind of apocalypticism that has always colored right-wing Zionist thought, but which has gained force over the last dozen years or so.

Moderates and liberals consider a nuclearized Iran a serious strategic problem. But they also consider military options useless to stop it, and further believe that a nuclear Iran can be deterred.

Conservative Zionists see the matter much more starkly. The Iranian nuclear program is an existential threat best understood in the context of the Holocaust denialism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/why-benjamin-netanyahu-lost-his-mind.html

Anything that weakens the pro-Israel lobby in Washington is to be welcomed and applauded.

Well this will likely weaken the Israeli position. Foreign powers messing in a domestic situation is not going to sit well with the US public, I think. Questioning the trustworthiness of Obama may be justified, but questioning Netanyahu is positively necessary. He is asking the US to do its dirty work.

At this juncture in time, the US has a lot to lose and Israel has nothing to lose.

The Obama administration leaked the agreement for Israeli jets to be stationed in Azerbaijan, which is far closer to the Iranian nuclear facilities, this wasn't the only leak that compromised Israeli unilateral action. Yet the Whitehouse then had the Gall to call Netanyahu 'Chicken shit' for not attacking them. You can't have it both ways, the rift between Obama and Netanyahu was as inevitable as it was constructive based on the actions of the Obama administration.

Congress has many domestic avenues for opposing Obama, that they chose to invite Netanyahu to speak shows how seriously they view the Iranian threat, which is something that seems to completely elude the president.

Stopping Obama from allowing Iran to get nukes is a lot more important than partisan politics. He gives more respect to Islamic dictators than one of our closest allies.

What an unbelievably partisan post. 'Stopping Obama from allowing Iran to get nukes'? I think the goal is to stop Iran from getting Nukes, not stopping Obama...

Oh, wait, for you, yes, it may be about stopping Obama.

Netanyahu and Obama are not the only ones on a collision course here.

It might be a good idea if the Republicans made up their mind what they want beside to eliminate Obama. The whole situation is beginning to sound a little like Thailand's effort to eradicate someone from politics and history.

It's mind boggling how childish this all is.

obama is the enabler for radical Islamics such as the Muslim Brotherhood, et al. Based on his track record obama most certainly would make a deal to allow Iran to continue on the path to be able to make nuclear weapons. Iran is not far from that ability now.

If Israel attacked Iran that could very well be the catalyst for the moderate Muslims to unit and to go hell bent. If you think ISIS is a problem now, wait till that happens.

You seem to be overlooking the Shiite v. Sunni divide.

An attack on Iran might very well be welcomed by some of the Sunni leaders.

Of course to Obama , like all megalomaniacs, his own personal interests trump everything else. Hence he delayed supplying Israel with the latest bunker busters until after he was reelected in 2012, thus he coerced Netanyahu to delay attacking Iran until after he was given four more years to bungle and enable Islamists.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/obama-promises-bunker-busters-israel-if-netanyahu-delays-iran-invasion-until-after-us-elections

Let's remember again the 'Chicken shit' comment to see the stupefying hypocrisy of the Obama administration. Of course another reason to delay came after Obama was reelected with supposed progress in the nuclear talks being the next excuse along with a cynically timed diversionary missile assault from Hamas and the bungling Kerry being dispatched to cause more strife, no doubt with an 'Islam for dummies' book under his arm.

If Israel attacked Iran that could very well be the catalyst for the moderate Muslims to unit and to go hell bent. If you think ISIS is a problem now, wait till that happens.

The Sunni states would then issue condemnations in the U.N, return home and privately say 'Thank God for Israel'.

Very interesting article on the subject at

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/28/binyamin-netanyahu-congress-speech-israel

Netanyahu’s Congress speech scuppers bipartisan unity on support for Israel.

It is dangerous and frightening that the PM of a foreign power 6,000 miles away has the audacity to try to sabotage Obama's presidency.

What was more frightening to me was the cringeworthy kow towing roll call that Congress members are forced to undergo at AIPAC annual meetings.

"Members of Congress are invited to stand one by one to be acknowledged for their support for Israel, or for Aipac’s hawkish brand of it. It typically takes half an hour as the names of around two-thirds of representatives and senators are called."

And the fact that the Zionist Organisation of America supported by hawkish billionaire supporter of Netanyahu, Sheldon Adelson, is taking the names of Democrats who dont show up for Netanyahu's speech.

“We will, of course, be publicly condemning any Democrats who don’t show up for the speech—unless they have a doctor’s note,”

Talk about the tail wagging the dog. Who are the true patriots... the Israeli firsters, or supporters of the dignity of President Obama's office.

Very interesting article on the subject at

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/28/binyamin-netanyahu-congress-speech-israel

Netanyahu’s Congress speech scuppers bipartisan unity on support for Israel.

<snipped>

“We will, of course, be publicly condemning any Democrats who don’t show up for the speech—unless they have a doctor’s note,”

Talk about the tail wagging the dog. Who are the true patriots... the Israeli firsters, or supporters of the dignity of President Obama's office.

It should count if the note is from a psychiatrist.

Stopping Obama from allowing Iran to get nukes is a lot more important than partisan politics. He gives more respect to Islamic dictators than one of our closest allies.

What an unbelievably partisan post. 'Stopping Obama from allowing Iran to get nukes'? I think the goal is to stop Iran from getting Nukes, not stopping Obama...

Oh, wait, for you, yes, it may be about stopping Obama.

Netanyahu and Obama are not the only ones on a collision course here.

It might be a good idea if the Republicans made up their mind what they want beside to eliminate Obama. The whole situation is beginning to sound a little like Thailand's effort to eradicate someone from politics and history.

It's mind boggling how childish this all is.

Onummer is dead set to reach an agreement with Iran in order to make himself look good at the expense of Israel. The deal he is trying to get Iran to agree to is for 10 years. After that, Iran is free to do what it wants. Even the other Arab countries don't want Iran to go nuclear because it will make an uneven playing field with the other Arab countries and they too fear what Iran would do when they get the nukes.

The day that the USA turns her back on Israel is the day the USA will fail. We have been on that collision course for quite some time. Had Obummer listened to the Generals that requested 30,000troops to remain in Iraq, ISIS would have never been able to do what they have done.

BTW...Obummer had nothing to do with pulling the troops out of Iraq like he claims. What he is responsible for is what is taken place there now. Complete failure!

The president of the United States is looking after the national security interests of the United States.

Iraq is off topic but in passing to say the US needed to withdraw all forces because the Iraqi government would not agree to the requisite Status of Forces Agreement of US forces there.

There is no 10-year deal at this point in time because rumors are not facts. The P5+1 and Iran are continuing to negotiate.

“The policy is Iran will not get a nuclear weapon,” Secretary of State John Kerry said earlier Tuesday. “And anybody running around right now, jumping in to say, well, we

don’t like the deal, or this or that, doesn’t know what the deal is. There is no deal yet.”

| The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-denies-10-year-freeze-deal-in-works-with-iran/#ixzz3T7CaKIkp

People opposed to a negotiated agreement offer no peaceful alternative course of action. The opposition to a P5+1 and Iranian nuclear agreement want to stop the negotiations, end them, terminate the negotiations. Yet those opposed to negotiations have no alternative plan they have said would lead to a peaceful resolution of nuclear power and energy in Iran.

The people opposed to a negotiated agreement have no alternative to it. Certainly not a peaceful alternative to a negotiated agreement. What is the peaceful alternative to no negotiated agreement? What is the alternative to a negotiated agreement?? If there's no negotiated agreement, then what???

Stopping Obama from allowing Iran to get nukes is a lot more important than partisan politics. He gives more respect to Islamic dictators than one of our closest allies.

What an unbelievably partisan post. 'Stopping Obama from allowing Iran to get nukes'? I think the goal is to stop Iran from getting Nukes, not stopping Obama...

Oh, wait, for you, yes, it may be about stopping Obama.

Netanyahu and Obama are not the only ones on a collision course here.

It might be a good idea if the Republicans made up their mind what they want beside to eliminate Obama. The whole situation is beginning to sound a little like Thailand's effort to eradicate someone from politics and history.

It's mind boggling how childish this all is.

Onummer is dead set to reach an agreement with Iran in order to make himself look good at the expense of Israel. The deal he is trying to get Iran to agree to is for 10 years. After that, Iran is free to do what it wants. Even the other Arab countries don't want Iran to go nuclear because it will make an uneven playing field with the other Arab countries and they too fear what Iran would do when they get the nukes.

The day that the USA turns her back on Israel is the day the USA will fail. We have been on that collision course for quite some time. Had Obummer listened to the Generals that requested 30,000troops to remain in Iraq, ISIS would have never been able to do what they have done.

BTW...Obummer had nothing to do with pulling the troops out of Iraq like he claims. What he is responsible for is what is taken place there now. Complete failure!

And if the Republicans under Dubya acting on the weapons of mass deception advice of his Israeli supporting neocons had not needlessly started this whole mess in Iraq with a totally futile mission looking for non existent WMD, Saddam, tyrant though he was, would have kept Iraq stable and Iran neutralized.

The Republicans and Netanyahu display incredible chutzpah in laying all the ills of the Middle East at Obama's door.

There is only one solution:

ISRAEL, GET RID OF YOUR NUCLEAR WEAPONS ! (actually all nations).

I am sure Iran is willing to talk then.

The president of the United States is looking after the national security interests of the United States.

Iraq is off topic but in passing to say the US needed to withdraw all forces because the Iraqi government would not agree to the requisite Status of Forces Agreement of US forces there.

There is no 10-year deal at this point in time because rumors are not facts. The P5+1 and Iran are continuing to negotiate.

“The policy is Iran will not get a nuclear weapon,” Secretary of State John Kerry said earlier Tuesday. “And anybody running around right now, jumping in to say, well, we

don’t like the deal, or this or that, doesn’t know what the deal is. There is no deal yet.”

| The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-denies-10-year-freeze-deal-in-works-with-iran/#ixzz3T7CaKIkp

People opposed to a negotiated agreement offer no peaceful alternative course of action. The opposition to a P5+1 and Iranian nuclear agreement want to stop the negotiations, end them, terminate the negotiations. Yet those opposed to negotiations have no alternative plan they have said would lead to a peaceful resolution of nuclear power and energy in Iran.

The people opposed to a negotiated agreement have no alternative to it. Certainly not a peaceful alternative to a negotiated agreement. What is the peaceful alternative to no negotiated agreement? What is the alternative to a negotiated agreement?? If there's no negotiated agreement, then what???

The president of the United States is looking after the national security interests of the United States.

So naive if you really believe that!

You can't negotiate with someone who has no intention of abiding by any agreement. Interesting that while Obuma is negotiating with Iran, Iran was busy blowing up a mockup american aircraft carrier. Iran still thinks of the USA as the great satan.

Do you really let people like that attain nuclear capablities?