James Mattis Calls for U.S. Military to Be More Lethal at Defense Secretary Confirmation Hearing
Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman speak with retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich, author of America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, Aaron Glantz, a senior reporter at Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, and Trita Parsi, founder and president of the National Iranian American Council. Mattis’s 41-year career in the Marine Corps included field commands in the Persian Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan. He led U.S. troops during the 2004 battle of Fallujah, earning himself the nickname “Mad Dog” Mattis. In May 2004, Mattis ordered an attack on a small Iraqi village that ended up killing about 42 people attending a wedding ceremony. He went on to lead United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013, but the Obama administration cut short his tour over concerns he was too hawkish on Iran. (Democracy Now!)
- General Mattis: A Pledge for More of the Same at the Pentagon
- Did Defense Secretary nominee James Mattis commit war crimes in Iraq?
- Mattis Breaks With Trump, Says US Should ‘Live Up’ to Iran Deal
- Mattis sails through confirmation hearing and waiver vote
- 5 biggest takeaways from Mattis’ confirmation hearing
- Mattis: ‘Mad Dog’ was a nickname given by the press
- 10 Things You Didn’t Know About James Mattis
- Mattis says ‘very, very’ confident in U.S. intelligence agencies
- James Mattis calls Vladimir Putin a threat to global order
- James Mattis says Putin’s ‘trying to break’ NATO
- Capital of Israel Is Tel Aviv, Says Mattis
- No one asked Mattis about his Theranos ties
Trump Won’t Rip Up Iran Deal, Adviser Confirms
Jason Ditz reports for Antiwar:
Key Trump foreign policy adviser Walid Phares today offered clarification on the president-elect’s plans for the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, confirming that he intends to “review” the deal, but has no intention of trying to unilaterally rip it up.
Trump’s election has sparked a flurry of speculation about things he might do, and one of the major ones has been non-stop speculation that the P5+1 deal is effectively dead, even though a lot of international officials were quick to point out that the multi-lateral agreement isn’t something a US president could just destroy on a whim.
Sens. John McCain (R – AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R – SC) bought into this idea too, announcing yesterday that they believe Trump agrees with them on Iran, by which they mean he would be ripping up the deal with an eye toward eventually starting a war.
- Adviser says Trump won’t rip up Iran deal, signals he may not move embassy
- Anti-Trump GOP Senators Want to ‘Work With Him’ on Iran Sanctions
- Trump Likely to Back Off Pledge to Derail Iran Nuclear Deal
- Donald Trump ‘won’t be able to get rid of the Iran deal’
- Iran nuclear deal could collapse under Trump
Iran Still Sticking to Nuclear Deal, IAEA Confirms
Jason Ditz reports for Antiwar:
The latest in an ongoing series of regular reports by the IAEA on the implementation of the P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran has shown, once again, that Iran is fully in compliance with all of its obligations under the deal, and that there was not a single violation in the period covered by this most recent report.
The report, though not made public, appears in all ways identical to other reports on the implementation, and Iran has been in compliance throughout the year since the deal took effect. The new report also confirms that Iran provided additional documentation, as requested.
The Contrived Iran Threat
Philip Giraldi writes for The Unz Review:
These preposterous claims come on top of spurious assertions that Iran was building a nuclear weapon, repeated assiduously by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others in his various administrations over the course of twenty years. As it turns out, Iran was not building a nuke and much of the information used to bolster the argument being made turned out to be fabricated by the Israelis themselves, which says something for their credibility.
- Overcoming the “Manufactured Crisis” with Iran (Book Review)
- Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare (Book Review)
- Did Robert Gates Manufacture the Iran Crisis?
- How US Policy on Iran Came to Be Based on Fabricated Documents
- Iran says nuclear suspicions are ‘fabricated ambiguities’
- Gareth Porter adds timely facts, realism to Iran nuclear discussion
- Hans Blix on a Legacy of Nuclear Safeguards and Inspections
IAEA Report: Iran Complying With Nuclear Deal
Jason Ditz reports for Antiwar:
The latest report from the IAEA has once again affirmed that Iran is complying with the terms of the P5+1 nuclear deal, a month after their previous report affirmed that the entire deal had come into force.
This affirmation comes irrespective of handwringing among US Congressional hawks about how Iran would never comply with the deal, and shows that the deal is firmly in place as Iran goes to the polls.
The only “violation” was an extremely technical one, in which Iran briefly exceeded its limit of stored heavy water by less than 1%, with officials saying they verified that for a few days Iran had 130.9 tonnes, in excess of the 130.0 tonnes they are allowed. Iran exported 20 tonnes within days of that, however, bringing them well under the limit again.
Nitro Zeus: Massive U.S. Planned Cyberattack Against Iran Went Well Beyond Stuxnet
Dan Goodin reports for Ars Technica:
The Stuxnet computer worm that destroyed centrifuges inside Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment site was only one element of a much larger US-prepared cyberattack plan that targeted Iran’s air defenses, communications systems, and key parts of its power grid, according to articles published Tuesday.
The contingency plan, known internally as Nitro Zeus, was intended to be carried out in the event that diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear development program failed and the US was pulled into a war between Iran and Israel, according to an article published by The New York Times. At its height, planning for the program involved thousands of US military and intelligence personnel, tens of millions of dollars in expenditures, and the placing of electronic implants in Iranian computer networks to ensure the operation targeting critical infrastructure would work at a moment’s notice.
Another piece of the plan involved using a computer worm to destroy computer systems at the Fordo nuclear enrichment site, which was built deep inside a mountain near the Iranian city of Qom. It had long been considered one of the hardest Iranian targets to disable and was intended to be a follow-up to “Olympic Games,” the code name of the plan Stuxnet fell under.
- U.S. Had Cyberattack Plan if Iran Nuclear Dispute Led to Conflict
- U.S. Hacked Into Iran’s Critical Civilian Infrastructure For Massive Cyberattack, New Film Claims
- Stuxnet Part Of Widespread Cyber-Intrusion Of Iranian Infrastructure, New Film Claims
- An Unprecedented Look at Stuxnet, the World’s First Digital Weapon
- Stuxnet virus was planted by Israeli agents using USB sticks, according to new report
- Stuxnet “beta’s” devious alternate attack on Iran nuke program
- U.S. tried Stuxnet-style campaign against North Korea but failed
US sanctions against Iran lifted after compliance with nuclear deal
Saeed Kamali Dehghan reports for The Guardian:
The US secretary of state, John Kerry, has ordered that nuclear-related economic sanctions against Iran be lifted after a final report by the International Atomic Energy Agency verified that Tehran had fulfilled its obligations under last year’s nuclear agreement.
In a statement, Kerry said the sanctions termination provisions of Iran’s landmark nuclear agreement were now in effect. President Barack Obama delegated authority to Kerry to make the determination. Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, told reporters in Vienna: “Today we have achieved Implementation Day of the joint comprehensive plan of action,” referring to the deal sealed last July.
The move came after the IAEA’s decision late on Saturday that Tehran had successfully complied with the terms of the deal. That announcement in turn followed the release of four dual nationals and a teenage student in a prisoner swap with the US. They included the Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, who was held on charges of spying for over a year. The Iranian-Americans were released in exchange for seven Iranian nationals held in US prisons, apparently for violating sanctions. The timing of the prisoner swap implies that the issue had been discussed on the sidelines of the nuclear talks despite denial from both sides.
- Prisoner release and nuclear deal sees Iran sanctions lifted as US heralds ‘safer world’
- What lifting Iran sanctions means for world markets
- As Iran Prepares to Sell Its Oil, Officials Look at Ways to Bolster the Price
- IAEA Report Expected This Weekend, Iran Sanctions Relief Days Away
- U.S., EU, U.N. close to lifting Iran sanctions: Here’s how it will work
- German trade body urges speedy revival of Iran ties
- Saudi Arabia Issue Warning Over End Of Iran Sanctions
- Iran’s Swift Release of U.S. Sailors Hailed as a Sign of Warmer Relations
- A Bad Week for Warmongers: U.S.-Iran Quickly Resolve Sailors’ Breach Just Before Nuke Deal Kicks In
- Iran frees Post correspondent Jason Rezaian, 3 others, U.S. and Iranian officials say
- US Official: Iran Also Releasing 5th Detained American, Unrelated to Prisoner Swap
- Huffington Post Held Story On The U.S.-Iranian Prisoner Exchange
U.S. Radically Changes Its Story of the Boats in Iranian Waters: to an Even More Suspicious Version
Glenn Greenwald reports for The Intercept:
When news first broke of the detention of two U.S. ships in Iranian territorial waters, the U.S. media — aside from depicting it as an act of Iranian aggression — uncritically cited the U.S. government’s explanation for what happened. One of the boats, we were told, experienced “mechanical failure” and thus “inadvertently drifted” into Iranian waters. On CBS News, Joe Biden told Charlie Rose, “One of the boats had engine failure, drifted into Iranian waters.”
Provided their government script, U.S. media outlets repeatedly cited these phrases — “mechanical failure” and “inadvertently drifted” and “boat in distress” — like some sort of hypnotic mantra.
[…] The U.S. government itself now says this story was false. There was no engine failure, and the boats were never “in distress.” Once the sailors were released, AP reported, “In Washington, a defense official said the Navy has ruled out engine or propulsion failure as the reason the boats entered Iranian waters.”
Instead, said Defense Secretary Ashton Carter at a press conference this morning, the sailors “made a navigational error that mistakenly took them into Iranian territorial waters.” He added that they “obviously had misnavigated” when, in the words of the New York Times, “they came within a few miles of Farsi Island, where Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps has a naval base.”
- Addressing Critics, White House Cites Diplomacy in Release of Sailors by Iran
- Defense Secretary Says U.S. Sailors Made Navigational Error Into Iranian Waters
- U.S. Media Condemns Iran’s “Aggression” in Intercepting U.S. Naval Ships — in Iranian Waters
- A Bad Week for Warmongers: U.S.-Iran Quickly Resolve Sailors’ Breach Just Before Nuke Deal Kicks In
- Iran’s Swift Release of U.S. Sailors Hailed as a Sign of Warmer Relations
- US: Prisoner of war protections didn’t apply to sailors caught by Iran
- US Navy Sailors Released Unharmed by Iran in Less Than a Day
- Marine Veteran Held by Iran Received Care, His Family Says
- How U.S. sailors almost started a crisis with Iran
- US, Iran Step Back From the Brink
- America’s Flight 17
A Bad Week for Warmongers as U.S. and Iran Quickly Resolve Sailors’ Breach Just Before Nuke Deal Kicks In: Interview Trita Parsi
Amy Goodman and Narmeen Sheikh recently spoke to Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, and author of the forthcoming book: Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran and the Legacy of Diplomacy. (Democracy Now!)
- Prisoner release and nuclear deal sees Iran sanctions lifted as US heralds ‘safer world’
- Addressing Critics, White House Cites Diplomacy in Release of Sailors by Iran
- U.S. Radically Changes Its Story of the Boats in Iranian Waters: to an Even More Suspicious Version
- U.S. Media Condemns Iran’s “Aggression” in Intercepting U.S. Naval Ships — in Iranian Waters
- Iran’s Swift Release of U.S. Sailors Hailed as a Sign of Warmer Relations
- US Navy Sailors Released Unharmed by Iran in Less Than a Day
- US, Iran Step Back From the Brink
Could Iran Nuke Deal Help Create Way to Address North Korean Crisis? Interview with Joe Cirincione and Christine Ahn
Amy Goodman speaks to Joe Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund and author of Nuclear Nightmares: Securing the World Before It is Too Late, and Christine Ahn, founder and executive director of Women Cross DMZ, a global movement of women mobilizing to end the Korean War. (Democracy Now!)
- To End North Korea’s Nuclear Program, End the Korean War
- Is It Time to Restart Peace, Disarmament Talks on the Korean Peninsula? Interview with Christine Ahn
- In a dangerous world, North Korea’s latest nuclear test makes a kind of sense
- Behind North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme: A geriatric trio
- US, experts cast doubt on North Korea’s H-bomb claim
- North Korea’s Claims of Hydrogen Bomb Test Doubted
- Behind North Korea’s Nukes: George W. Bush’s “Khan Job”
- How George Bush Gave Krazy Kim The Bomb
IAEA Report Finds Many Allegations on Iran’s Nuclear History Are Baseless: Interview with Robert Kelly
Sharmini Peries talks to Robert Kelley, a former IAEA nuclear inspector. Kelley says that the IAEA had failed to adequately investigate charges that were made in the past by U.S. and Israel against Iran in order to derail negotiations. (The Real News)
Iran’s ‘Deep State’ Has the Most to Lose from Opening to the West
Editor’s Note: You can listen to a recent interview with Muhammad Sahimi discussing the below article here.
Muhammad Sahimi writes for The National Interest:
The comprehensive nuclear agreement between Iran and P5+1 – the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany – was signed on July 14. A few days later the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 2231 endorsing it. October 18 was the “adoption day” of the agreement, the day both sides began laying the legal groundwork for carrying out their obligations under the agreement. In particular, the European Union and the United States began the legal process to lift the economic sanctions against Iran.
Led by President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s moderates and pragmatists have been trying to open their country’s gates to the outside world. Believing that the shadow of war has been lifted, they are trying to attract foreign investments, normalize Iran’s relations with the West and in particular the United States, and move the nation’s political system toward a more inclusive and open one.
But, Iran’s deep state – the security and intelligence forces and their hardline supporters that hide behind the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – does not want normalization of the relations with the West. While it does want lifting of the economic sanctions imposed on Iran, it also abhors opening Iran to the world. The reason is clear: normalization of the political and economic ties with the West will lead to loosening of the deep state’s grip on political power. Loss of political power will inevitably lead to the loss of economic might and privileges that the deep state and its supporters enjoy.
Noam Chomsky on Power and Ideology
This past Saturday, Noam Chomsky spoke in front of a sold-out audience of close to 1,000 people at The New School’s John L. Tishman Auditorium in New York City. In a speech titled “On Power and Ideology,” Chomsky discussed George Orwell, the suppression of ideas, the persistence of U.S. exceptionalism, Republican efforts to torpedo the Iran nuclear deal, and the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations. (Democracy Now!)
Thanks to Libya, North Korea Might Never Negotiate on Nuclear Weapons
Doug Bandow, author of Foreign Follies, writes for The National Interest:
The Obama administration’s success in negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran has led to hope that a similar agreement might be reached with North Korea. Halt your program, dismantle some of your capabilities and accept intrusive inspections in return for “coming in from the cold.”
Unfortunately, there’s virtually no chance of that happening. The North already has a nuclear capability and views preservation of a nuclear arsenal as critical for domestic politics as well as international policy. Moreover, the West’s ouster of Libya’s Moammar Khadafy is seen in Pyongyang as dispositive proof that only a fool would negotiate away missile and nuclear capabilities.
Many, if not most, Korea experts long ago lost hope that the North was prepared to dismantle its nuclear program. In word and action, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) had demonstrated its commitment to being a nuclear state. While none of its neighbors desires that outcome, the North has ample reason to be well armed.
- Iran deal leaves N. Korea alone in rogue states club
- North Korea: We’re not interested in Iran-style nuclear talks
- North Korea says it’s ‘not interested’ in an Iran-style nuclear deal
- Iran nuke deal may prompt US-North Korea talks
- The Iran nuclear deal has North Korea written all over it
- Iranian Deal – A Win for Multilateralism
- China’s top paper says Iran deal shows talks, not sanctions, work
- Hailed as a Model for Successful Intervention, Libya Proves to be the Exact Opposite
- Pakistan’s nuclear weapons mastermind AQ Khan denies advising North Korea and Iran
- North Korea Suggests Libya Should Have Kept Nuclear Program
- In U.S.-Libya Nuclear Deal, a Qaddafi Threat Faded Away
- How George Bush Gave Krazy Kim The Bomb
- AQ Khan – History Commons Timeline
Why is Saudi Arabia Now Supporting the Iran Deal?
- Wave of TV Ads Opposing Iran Deal Organized By Saudi Arabian Lobbyist
- Saudi Arabia Approves of Iran Nuclear Deal, U.S. Defense Chief Says
- Saudi Arabia Responds to Iran Deal: Give Us 600 Patriot Missiles
- U.S. Widens Role in Saudi-led Campaign Against Houthi Rebels in Yemen
- US confirms $60bn Saudi arms deal
Iran Deal: Don’t expect much change in post-Vienna US Middle East policy
Gareth Porter writes for Middle East Eye:
If and when the Iran nuclear agreement gets through Congress, many people in Washington hope that Obama will articulate a more realistic strategy for the Middle East than what we have heard from his administration in the past.
But Obama has evidently decided this is not the time to articulate anything about the region’s future that he does not see as helping to sell the agreement on Capitol Hill. The real question is whether there is a clear idea waiting to be made public when the timing is right.
If there was ever an appropriate moment for Obama to articulate an overarching post-agreement policy vision that integrated the Iran nuclear agreement into a broader strategy for dealing with a Middle East at war, it was his speech at American University on 5 August. The time and place for the speech were chosen in explicit acknowledgement of John F. Kennedy’s speech at that same university 52 years earlier. In his speech, JFK offered a vision of a transformation of US policy toward the Soviet Union and the Cold War from one of confrontation to negotiations. But instead of using that occasion to explain how US diplomacy might play a transformational role in the Middle East, Obama limited the speech to defending the Vienna agreement in the narrowest terms.
- Remarks by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal
- CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Interviews President Barack Obama on the P+5 Iran deal
- Obama On Iran Deal: ‘Attitudes Will Change’
- US top scientists praise Iran deal in letter to Obama
- Obama’s line on the Iran nuclear deal: A second false narrative
- Gareth Porter: ‘Media Have Been Applying a False Narrative to the Entire Issue’
- The Iran nuclear agreement in a nutshell
To Defend Iran Deal, Obama Boasts That He’s Bombed Seven Countries
Glenn Greenwald writes for The Intercept:
[…] Beyond accurately describing Iran deal opponents, Obama also accurately described himself and his own record of militarism. To defend against charges that he Loves the Terrorists, he boasted:
As commander-in-chief, I have not shied away from using force when necessary. I have ordered tens of thousands of young Americans into combat.
I’ve ordered military action in seven countries.
By “ordered military actions in seven countries,” what he means is that he has ordered bombs dropped, and he has extinguished the lives of thousands of innocent people, in seven different countries, all of which just so happen to be predominantly Muslim.
Iran deal is about staving off the coming oil shock
Nafeez Ahmed writes for Middle Easy Eye:
‘
[…] George Friedman, founder and CEO of private US intelligence firm Stratfor – which operates closely with the Pentagon and State Department – forecasted the US-Iran détente four years ago.
His prescient assessment of its strategic rationale is worth noting. Friedman explained that by reaching “a temporary understanding with Iran,” the US would give itself room to withdraw while playing off Iran against the Sunni regimes, limiting Iran’s “direct controls” in the region, “while putting the Saudis, among others, at an enormous disadvantage”.
“This strategy would confront the reality of Iranian power and try to shape it,” wrote Friedman.
Ultimately, though, the US is betting on the rise of Turkey – hence the latter’s pivotal role in the new anti-IS rebel training strategy, despite Turkey’s military and financial sponsorship of IS.
For the US, “the longer-term solution to the balance of power in the region will be the rise of Turkey,” which would “counterbalance Iran and Israel, while stabilising the Arabian Peninsula.” This will eventually generate “a new regional balance of power”.
Crucially, this regional balance of power would operate under the overarching sway of US military pre-eminence.
As Stephen Kinzer has pointed out, a US-Turkey-Iran axis would enhance the US ability to police Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Pakistan from a distance, while safeguarding oil and gas transportation routes to Europe.
But both Friedman and Kinzer missed another critical factor in these geopolitical considerations: the prospect of a global oil shock.’
- What the Iran nuclear deal means for oil prices
- Iran courting US oil interests in secret talks
- China’s great crash: Signs of trouble?
- China Peak Oil: 2015 Is the Year
- How Crisis In The Energy Sector Could Spark A Repeat Of The Subprime Bust
- Big Oil’s Latest Fear: A Price Shock After Spending Cuts
- US could go into recession in 2015: Expert
- Why Big Oil Companies Are Unable To Increase Reserves To Counter Declining Production
- Why Jim Chanos Thinks Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and Petrobras (PBR) Are In Trouble
- Price fall to push oil industry into sharp recession: Report
- Ex govt adviser: “global market shock” from “oil crash” could hit in 2015
- 2014: Why Oil Prices Haven’t Gone Crazy
- 2012: Energy Guru Robert Hirsch Gives A Dire Outlook For Oil
- Endless enemies – how the US is supporting the Islamic State by fighting it
- Strategic Reversal: The United States, Iran, and the Middle East
- Would a U.S. Strike Against Iran Actually Work?
- U.S. War Game Sees Perils of Israeli Strike Against Iran
- The Redirection
Gareth Porter on the Iran Deal: ‘Media Have Been Applying a False Narrative to the Entire Issue’
Gareth Porter was interviewed recently about the Iran deal on FAIR’s CounterSpin:
‘
Gareth Porter: Well, of course there is a great deal that the media are missing about the background of this, because of the fact that the media have been basically applying a false narrative to the entire issue of the Iran nuclear program for so long, and that means that they are missing essentially the entire true history of the program.
In my focus on one particular issue, I don’t mean to suggest that this is by any means the only problem with the news media interpretation or take on the Iran nuclear deal. But what I thought was particularly appropriate at this point is to look back and see, how did the US come to the point where it was ready to negotiate a deal on the nuclear program with Iran? And the answer to that is certainly not something that you will learn from reading the news media accounts.
I’ve been following this for some years now, and what struck me about the relevant history here is that, in fact, if you go back to the 1990s, the people within Iran who are part of this very strong, the most powerful political faction in the country, really, the Rafsanjani faction–named after the former President Rafsanjani, who wanted to integrate Iran into the global capitalist economy, and realized that their only hope for doing that was to reach some kind of an agreement with the United States–really began in the late 1980s and early 1990s to engage the United States diplomatically and politically. And what happened was that the United States was simply not interested, either under the George H.W. Bush administration or the Clinton administration, and certainly not the George W. Bush administration.
Why did the United States not take any interest in diplomatic engagement with Iran? Because, at that point, Iran was simply too weak, and the disparity in power with the United States was simply too great. The United States government did not see any compelling strategic reason to have a negotiating process with Iran.
In my book, I point out quite precisely in the very early 1990s, when the Bush administration at that time basically shifted a policy that had been planned to be carried out by the White House to reciprocate a gesture by Rafsanjani in helping to release US hostages in Lebanon, by essentially making some public concession or gesture to Iran, and instead of doing that, in the wake of the victory over Iraq, the administration decided that they didn’t really need Iran at all in their plans for the Middle East, and simply embarked on a new period of hostility toward Iran. So that was the beginning of this 25-year period, essentially, of the US being much less interested in reaching agreement with Iran than Iran was.
That’s been misunderstood, because Iran has not simply said, United States, we’ll do whatever you want to have an agreement with you. They wanted the United States to lift the sanctions. And that was the primary issue for many years, and the United States wasn’t willing to do that. So it was not really until the second Obama administration that the United States really deigned to enter into a fundamental negotiating process with Iran. Up until that time, the posture of the United States was: We will put pressure on Iran to force it to give up its nuclear program. Or, we’re really not interested in doing that; we will just carry out regime change, as was the case with the Bush administration.
What I’m really talking about here is the impact of the vast disparity in power between the United States and Iran, and how that has shaped the history of the whole question of the diplomatic engagement between the two countries.’
- Iran deal is about staving off the coming oil shock
- Kerry Warns Israel Against Attacking Iran
- Kerry: If Congress Kills Iran Deal, World Will Blame Israel
- Poll: Most of American Jews Support Iran Deal
- Gareth Porter Discusses Iran Deal Congress Hearings
- Obama officials: Netanyahu would reject any deal – except capitulation
- AIPAC kicks off major lobbying push against Iran pact
- Iran eyes $185 billion oil and gas projects after sanctions
- Iranian President Lashes Critics, Defends Nuclear Deal
- Rand Paul Endorses Military Action Against Iran
- Iran deal: From talk of a bomb to economic boom?
- Iran also in for a contentious debate on the nuclear accord
- Iran rejects sanctions extension beyond 10 years
- Lots of Lobbying on Iran Deal, But Few Changing Their Minds
- Pentagon chief tells Saudi Arabia: Iran threat is shared concern
- Pentagon Chief: Saudis Supportive of Iran Deal
- No “Compensation” to Israel for Iran Deal
- Obama slams ‘lobbyists, money’ working against his Iran deal
- Israeli think tank with GOP ties at center of Iran deal opposition
- Obama: Iran Deal Opponents Like Iraq War Hawks
- Obama: US will not be letting Iran off the hook
- Security Council Defies U.S. Lawmakers by Voting on Iran Nuke Deal
- UN Security Council, EU Both Endorse Iran Deal
- Senators Slam UN for Voting to Approve Iran Deal
- Q&A with Hans Blix: Iran deal is ‘remarkably far-reaching’
- Kerry ‘walked away three times’ from nuclear talks with Iran
- Iran-Pakistan Pipeline Receives Boost from Nuclear Deal
- Listing Americans held in Iran by name, Obama says Tehran needs to free them
- Iran Lawmakers to Wait 80 Days Before Voting on Nuclear Deal
- Anti-Iran Deal Groups Backed by $145 Million
- The Geopolitics and Economics of the Iran Nuclear Deal
- Israeli Army: Iran Remains ‘Top Priority’ After Nuclear Deal
- Former Israeli National-Security Officials Like Iran Deal
- US ‘Disturbed’ by Iran’s ‘Anti-American’ Comments
- Iran’s Jewish community leader calls Netanyahu ‘narcissistic, delusional’
- Iranian General Criticizes U.N. Resolution on Nuclear Deal
- American who was a hostage in Iran criticizes nuclear pact
- How the Iran Deal Serves America
- Bill Kristol on Iran Deal: ‘Its Munich!’
- Ron Paul: Iran Agreement Boosts Peace, Defeats Neocons
- Pentagon Chief Again Threatens to Attack Iran
- Defense Secretary: US Won’t Change Israel’s Mind on Iran Deal
- US Preparing ‘Unprecedented’ New Arms Package to Israel for Iran Deal
- Iran Deal Sent to US Congress, Starting 60-Day Review
- Iran deal tests Democrats loyalty to Obama
- Kerry: Claim that better Iran deal could have been reached is ‘fantasy’
- Ayatollah Khamenei, Backing Iran Negotiators, Endorses Nuclear Deal
- Iran may soon be open for business, but not to US firms
- Iran says nuclear deal will boost regional stability
- Obama, Saudi foreign minister welcome Iran nuclear deal
- WikiLeaks Shows a Saudi Obsession With Iran
- Iran nuclear deal: Top cleric says moves are ‘an insult’
- Kerry is ‘very, very hopeful’ Iran will release detained Americans
- Jeb Bush: I wouldn’t roll back Obama’s Iran deal on Day One
- Why Is Iran’s Refusal to Allow No-Notice Inspections Legit? U.S. History With Iraq
- It’s Simple, Face the Nation: Iran Doesn’t Trust US Inspectors–and Shouldn’t
Anti-Iran Deal AIPAC Spin-off Relies on Iranian Ex-Terrorist Group
Eli Clifton and Ali Gharib writes for LobeLog:
‘
When the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) declared war on the nuclear accord between Iran and world powers signed last week in Vienna, it put its money where its mouth is. AIPAC, Washington’s most influential pro-Israel lobby reportedly plans on spending $20 million over the next two months urging Congress to vote against the deal. But its efforts at a full frontal attack on the accord, inked by the P5+1 (the US, China, France, Russia, the UK, and Germany) and Iran is leading to some politically awkward alliances.
As part of its efforts to kill the deal with a congressional vote, AIPAC launched a 501c4 advocacy group called Citizens For A Nuclear Free Iran. The group, according to The New York Times, was “formed with the sole mission of educating the public ‘about the dangers of the proposed Iran deal,’” said spokesman Patrick Dorton. The Times reported that the $20 million budget would go to ad buys in as many as 40 states as well as other advocacy.
Now that the campaign is taking shape, the AIPAC spin-off appears to be relying on a typical, if troubling, ally of American groups and individuals opposed to diplomacy with Iran. Namely, two items on the website of Citizens for a Nuclear Iran, one of which was later removed, featured an exiled Iranian opposition group called the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK).
The MEK makes a cameo appearance in the television ad crafted by Citizens For a Nuclear Free Iran, the well-financed AIPAC spin-off, as well as on a now-removed news items on the group’s “Press Room” webpage—indicating that Nuclear Free Iran recognized a PR misstep by promoting the group.’
- The Iran nuclear deal. Good deal or bad deal?
- Pro-Israel Aipac Creates Group to Lobby Against the Iran Deal
- American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
- Cult Leader Will Tell Congress: Fight ISIS by Regime Change in Iran
- Long March of the Yellow Jackets: How a One-Time Terrorist Group Prevailed on Capitol Hill
- Human Rights Abuses Inside the Mojahedin Khalq Camps
- Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK)
Iran Deal: Obama Acts for America’s Interests
Eric Margolis, author of American Raj, writes:
‘
Barack Obama is the first American president to stand up to the Israel lobby since Dwight Eisenhower ordered Israel to withdraw from Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula in 1956-57.
Freed of re-election concerns and the need for vast amounts of cash, President Obama finally made the decision to put America’s strategic interests ahead of those of Israel by making peace with Iran. This was a huge accomplishment: the United States has waged economic and political warfare against the Islamic Republic since its creation in 1979.
Iran now looks likely to join Cuba in getting paroled from prison. Both refused to bow to Washington and paid a very heavy price that left them semi-crippled economically and isolated.
Unless the Israel lobby and its yes-men in Congress manage to block the nuclear agreement between Iran and major world powers, Tehran will be re-integrated into the world economic system and reassert its regional power. Iran is the world’s fourth largest producer of oil and a principal supplier to China and Japan.
Iran’s gradual return to unrestrained oil exporting may well spook markets that are already facing a severe glut of inventory that has driven down energy prices everywhere. So much for fears of “peak oil.”
It’s now time to begin dispelling the miasma of lies about Iran promoted by neoconservatives and their house media.’
- Lots of Lobbying on Iran Deal, But Few Changing Their Minds
- Pentagon chief tells Saudi Arabia: Iran threat is shared concern
- Obama slams ‘lobbyists, money’ working against his Iran deal
- Obama: Iran Deal Opponents Like Iraq War Hawks
- UN Security Council, EU Both Endorse Iran Deal
- Q&A with Hans Blix: Iran deal is ‘remarkably far-reaching’
- Kerry ‘walked away three times’ from nuclear talks with Iran
- America’s Limited Space for Iran Stories
- How the Iran Deal Serves America
- Bill Kristol on Iran Deal: ‘Its Munich!’
- Ron Paul: Iran Agreement Boosts Peace, Defeats Neocons
- Pentagon Chief Again Threatens to Attack Iran
- As an Iranian-American, both sides of my split identity rejoice at a nuclear deal
Is the ‘military option’ on Iran off the table?
Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, writes for the Baltimore Sun:
‘
[…] Looking for changes in official public statements was my bread and butter during a long tenure as a Kremlinologist. So on Wednesday, as I watched Mr. Obama defend the deal with Iran, I leaned way forward at each juncture — and there were several — where the timeworn warning about all options being “on the table” would have been de rigueur. He avoided saying it.
“All options on the table?” The open-ended nature of this Bush/Cheney-esque bully-type warning is at odds with Western international understandings spanning more than three and half centuries — from the treaties of Westphalia (1648), to the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) to the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal to the UN Charter (1945). Try raising that with Establishment Washington, though, and be prepared to be dismissed as “picky-picky,” or as quaint and as obsolete as the Geneva Conventions. Undergirding all this is the chauvinism reflected in President Obama’s repeated reminders that the U.S. “is the sole indispensable country in the world.”
But in the wake of last week’s accord with Iran in Vienna, it is possible now to hope that the “military option” is finally off the table — in reality, if not in occasional rhetorical palliatives for Israel.
Most Americans have no idea of how close we came to making war on Iran in 2008, the last year of the Bush/Cheney administration. Nor do they know of the essential role played by courageous managers of intelligence who, for the first time on the Iran nuclear issue, supervised a strictly evidence-based, from-the-bottom-up National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that concluded in November 2007 that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003 and had not resumed that work.’
- Lots of Lobbying on Iran Deal, But Few Changing Their Minds
- Pentagon chief tells Saudi Arabia: Iran threat is shared concern
- Obama: Iran Deal Opponents Like Iraq War Hawks
- Obama defends Iran deal, decries over-reliance on military force
- Obama: US will not be letting Iran off the hook
- Anti-Iran Deal AIPAC Spin-off Relies on Iranian Ex-Terrorist Group
- Security Council Defies U.S. Lawmakers by Voting on Iran Nuke Deal
- Q&A with Hans Blix: Iran deal is ‘remarkably far-reaching’
- No “Compensation” to Israel for Iran Deal
- Israeli Army: Iran Remains ‘Top Priority’ After Nuclear Deal
- Former Israeli National-Security Officials Like Iran Deal
- US ‘Disturbed’ by Iran’s ‘Anti-American’ Comments, Responds With Anti-Iranian Comments
- Ash Carter visits Israel in attempt to ease concerns over Iran deal
- Bill Kristol on Iran Deal: ‘Its Munich!’
- Ron Paul: Iran Agreement Boosts Peace, Defeats Neocons
- Pentagon Chief Again Threatens to Attack Iran
Report: US to Give Israel Massive Increase in Military Aid for Iran Deal
Jason Ditz reports for Antiwar:
‘
Israeli media are quoting officials familiar with the situation as saying there are quiet talks going on between the Obama Administration and Israel’s new far-right government on a “massive compensation” boost in military aid for Israel’s acquiescence on the civilian nuclear deal with Iran.
The deal is expected to be spun in the US and Israel as a huge boost in military aid to keep Israel’s “competitive advantage” over Saudi Arabia after that nation buys new US weapons, though Israel of course isn’t on particularly bad terms with the Saudis to begin with.
In return, Israel would be allowed to keep publicly complaining about the Iran deal, but would privately tone down their efforts to undermine the deal.’
- After Iran deal, Obama offers military upgrade to help Israel swallow bitter Iranian deal
- DM: Israel Expects Significant US ‘Compensation’ After Iran Pact
- AIPAC Forms New Anti-Iran Deal Lobbying Group
- 47% of Israelis Back Military Strike on Iran
- Israelis unified in bemoaning Iran deal, even Netanyahu’s opponents
- White House: Iran Sanctions Would Collapse if Congress Blocks Iran Deal
- After Iran Deal, Obama Seeks Talks on Buying Israel’s Acquiescence
- Netanyahu Hopes to Parlay Iran Deal ‘Crisis’ Into More Support
- Netanyahu, British FM Spar Over Iran Deal Disagreements
- GOP against Iran deal, with or without reading it
- Iran nuclear deal: ‘99% of world agrees’ says Obama
- Obama: Only Alternative to Iran Deal Is War
- Iran Deal Heads Toward Showdown With Adelson’s GOP
- Netanyahu launches US media blitz against Iran deal
- White House Courts Undecided Republican Lawmakers on Iran
- Hawks hate the Iran nuclear deal and can’t be honest about why
- UK minister: Israel wants ‘permanent standoff’ with Iran
- Israel Seeks Enormous Military Aid Hike Over Iran
How Three of the Iran Negotiations’ Toughest Issues Were Resolved
Gareth Porter, author of Manufactured Crisis, writes for Truthout:
‘
The 159-page text of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the six powers led by the United States does not contain any major surprises about the two central elements of the agreement – limits on the Iranian nuclear program and the timing and sequencing of lifting sanctions. And there is nothing in the text about the last major issue to be resolved – how the Security Council’s new resolution will deal with the arms embargo and ban on the Iranian ballistic missile program.
But details provided in the official text help confirm information available from other sources on the other two toughest issues: IAEA access to “suspicious sites” and the past allegations of Iranian work on nuclear weapons.
Below are brief accounts of what we now know about how these three major negotiating issues were resolved during the Vienna round of negotiations. The three issues are of particular interest because they have all been the most clearly linked to the politics of Israeli and Saudi opposition to the agreement.’
- The Iran nuclear agreement in a nutshell
- The Iran deal, explained in clear language by a nuclear expert
- CounterSpin Interview with Gareth Porter on Iran Deal
- Susan Rice Won’t Tell the Truth About Why Americans Can’t Inspect Iran
- GOP against Iran deal, with or without reading it
- Iran’s Conservative Opposition Spurns Nuclear Deal
- Netanyahu Hopes to Parlay Iran Deal ‘Crisis’ Into More Support
- Netanyahu, British FM Spar Over Iran Deal Disagreements
- Iran? Is That the One We Invaded?
- Former U.S. Diplomats Praise Iran Deal
- Iran nuclear deal: ‘99% of world agrees’ says Obama
- Obama: Only Alternative to Iran Deal Is War
- After Iran Deal, Obama Seeks Talks on Buying Israel’s Acquiescence
- Iran Deal Heads Toward Showdown With Adelson’s GOP
- Netanyahu launches US media blitz against Iran deal
- White House Courts Undecided Republican Lawmakers on Iran
- Hawks hate the Iran nuclear deal and can’t be honest about why
- J Street launches multimillion dollar campaign in support of Iran nuclear deal
- Iranians’ View of the Nuclear Deal: Optimistic, With Significant Caveats
- Ash Carter Travels to Israel to Ease Relations after Iran Nuclear Deal
- UK minister: Israel wants ‘permanent standoff’ with Iran
- Rand Paul’s Shoddy Arguments Against the Nuclear Deal
- With the Nuclear Deal, the US and Iran Start a New Chapter
- Why Is Iran’s Refusal to Allow No-Notice Inspections Legit? U.S. History With Iraq
- UN Resolution Would End Iran Sanctions in 10 Years
- Barack Obama praises Putin for help clinching Iran deal
- AEI Expert: Iranians Think “Very Differently” From Us Because They’re “Nationalists”
Netanyahu: Israel Won’t Be Bound by Iran Nuclear Deal
Jason Ditz reports for Antiwar:
‘
In between bouts of angrily shaking his fists at the sky about the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared today that he doesn’t believe his country is bound by the deal in the slightest, and remains free to attack Iran at any moment.
Netanyahu has been insisting a nuclear deal with Iran would mean the destruction of Israel throughout the talks, empty rhetoric during the long period when no one expected the talks to actually lead to any sort of deal. With a deal now not only possible but agreed to, Netanyahu is struggling to get his rhetoric on track.
Israel wasn’t involved in the nuclear deal, and has no obligations under it, so saying they are not bound by it is effectively meaningless. The threats to attack Iran are nothing new, but feel even emptier in the wake of the deal, as it would fuel an enormous international backlash against Israel, even if US hawks are okay with the idea.’
- Iran, World Powers Announce Historic Nuclear Deal
- Obama Warns Congress, Reassures Israel on Iran Deal
- Obama: Netanyahu cannot stop Iran deal
- Ehud Barak: Israel can live with a nuclear Iran
- On edge over Iran deal, Israel looks to lobby U.S. Congress
- Republicans fume over Iran nuclear deal but hope of undermining accord is slim
- Netanyahu denounces Iran nuclear deal but faces criticism from within Israel
- Pentagon chief reassures Israel: We will use “military option” against Iran if necessary
- Clinton supports Iran deal, says will seek to strengthen alliance with Israel if elected
- Mike Huckabee creates new ‘Daisy’ ad to warn against Iran deal
- U.S. Offers Billions in Arms to Ease Mideast’s Iran Anxiety
- Chaos in the Middle East means it’s time for an alliance with Iran
- Israelis and Saudis Reveal Secret Talks to Thwart Iran
- Report: US to Give Israel Massive Increase in Military Aid for Iran Deal
- The Israeli government has exaggerated the Iranian nuclear threat for years
Pentagon chief reassures Israel: We will use “military option” against Iran if necessary
Kristina Wong reports for The Hill:
‘
Defense Secretary Ash Carter reassured Israel and other allies in the Middle East on Tuesday that the U.S. would utilize the “military option” against Iran if needed.
“We remain prepared and postured to bolster the security of our friends and allies in the region, including Israel; to defend against aggression; ensure freedom of navigation in the Gulf; and check Iranian malign influence,” Carter said in a statement.
“We will utilize the military option if necessary,” he added.
“Our military — including tens of thousands of U.S. forces in the Middle East — are full speed ahead maintaining a strong presence in the Gulf.”
Carter’s remarks came after the administration announced it reached a nuclear deal with Iran to limit its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. ‘
- Iran, World Powers Announce Historic Nuclear Deal
- Netanyahu: Israel Won’t Be Bound by Iran Nuclear Deal
- Obama Warns Congress, Reassures Israel on Iran Deal
- Obama: Netanyahu cannot stop Iran deal
- Ehud Barak: Israel can live with a nuclear Iran
- On edge over Iran deal, Israel looks to lobby U.S. Congress
- Republicans fume over Iran nuclear deal but hope of undermining accord is slim
- Netanyahu denounces Iran nuclear deal but faces criticism from within Israel
- Clinton supports Iran deal, says will seek to strengthen alliance with Israel if elected
- Mike Huckabee creates new ‘Daisy’ ad to warn against Iran deal
- U.S. Offers Billions in Arms to Ease Mideast’s Iran Anxiety
- Chaos in the Middle East means it’s time for an alliance with Iran
- Israelis and Saudis Reveal Secret Talks to Thwart Iran
- Report: US to Give Israel Massive Increase in Military Aid for Iran Deal
- The Israeli government has exaggerated the Iranian nuclear threat for years
How a weaker Iran got the hegemon to lift sanctions
Gareth Porter writes for Middle East Eye:
‘
Now that Iran nuclear deal is completed, the attention of western news media and political commentators is predictably focused overwhelmingly on the opposition to the agreement within the US Congress and from Israel and the Saudi-led Sunni Arab coalition.
That media lens misses the real significance of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which is that Iran succeeded in negotiating an agreement with the United States that upheld its national right to a nuclear programme despite the obvious vast disparity in power between the two states. That power disparity between the global hegemon and a militarily weak but politically influential regional “middle power” has shaped not just the negotiating strategies of the two sides during the negotiations but, more importantly, how they came about in the first place.
The news media have adopted the Obama administration’s view that negotiations were the result of Iran responding to international sanctions. The problem with that conventional view is not that Iran wasn’t eager to get the sanctions removed, but that it was motivated to do so long before the United States was willing to negotiate.’
- Iran, World Powers Announce Historic Nuclear Deal
- Iran deal is a step toward reimagining the Middle East
- The Iran agreement marks a new era for the Middle East
- Nuclear Deal Takes U.S.-Iran Ties Out of Deep Freeze
- Victory in Vienna: Iran deal averts war – and opens up an new era in US foreign policy
- Deal Reached on Iran Nuclear Program; Limits on Fuel Would Lessen With Time
- Could Historic Iran Nuclear Deal Transform the Middle East? Interview with Flynt Leverett
- Iran Deal Creates World’s Most Intrusive Inspection Regime: Interview with Lawrence Wikerson
- Iran nuke deal depends on most intrusive inspection system ever
- Agreement Effectively Ends Iranian Breakout Capacity: Interview with Robert Kelley
- With Iran Deal Reached, Now US Anti-War Base Must Mobilize to Defend It
- Nuclear Medicine: Deal Ensures Iran Access to Medical Isotopes
- Iranians dance in streets, thank Rouhani for nuclear deal
- Chaos in the Middle East means it’s time for an alliance with Iran
Iran Deal Creates World’s Most Intrusive Inspection Regime: Interview with Lawrence Wikerson
Lawrence Wilkerson is a retired United States Army Colonel and a former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. He is known for being critical of the Iraq War. (The Real News)
- Iran, World Powers Announce Historic Nuclear Deal
- Iran nuke deal depends on most intrusive inspection system ever
- How a weaker Iran got the hegemon to lift sanctions
- Iran deal is a step toward reimagining the Middle East
- The Iran agreement marks a new era for the Middle East
- Nuclear Deal Takes U.S.-Iran Ties Out of Deep Freeze
- Victory in Vienna: Iran deal averts war – and opens up an new era in US foreign policy
- Deal Reached on Iran Nuclear Program; Limits on Fuel Would Lessen With Time
- Could Historic Iran Nuclear Deal Transform the Middle East? Interview with Flynt Leverett
- Agreement Effectively Ends Iranian Breakout Capacity: Interview with Robert Kelley
- With Iran Deal Reached, Now US Anti-War Base Must Mobilize to Defend It
- Nuclear Medicine: Deal Ensures Iran Access to Medical Isotopes
- Iranians dance in streets, thank Rouhani for nuclear deal
- Chaos in the Middle East means it’s time for an alliance with Iran
Could Historic Iran Nuclear Deal Transform the Middle East? Interview with Flynt Leverett
Flynt Leverett is the author of “Going to Tehran: Why America Must Accept the Islamic Republic of Iran“. He is also professor of international affairs at Penn State. He served for over a decade in the U.S. government as a senior analyst at the CIA, a Middle East specialist for the State Department and as senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council. (Democracy Now!)
- Iran, World Powers Announce Historic Nuclear Deal
- How a weaker Iran got the hegemon to lift sanctions
- Iran deal is a step toward reimagining the Middle East
- The Iran agreement marks a new era for the Middle East
- Nuclear Deal Takes U.S.-Iran Ties Out of Deep Freeze
- Victory in Vienna: Iran deal averts war – and opens up an new era in US foreign policy
- Deal Reached on Iran Nuclear Program; Limits on Fuel Would Lessen With Time
- Iran Deal Creates World’s Most Intrusive Inspection Regime: Interview with Lawrence Wikerson
- Iran nuke deal depends on most intrusive inspection system ever
- Agreement Effectively Ends Iranian Breakout Capacity: Interview with Robert Kelley
- With Iran Deal Reached, Now US Anti-War Base Must Mobilize to Defend It
- Nuclear Medicine: Deal Ensures Iran Access to Medical Isotopes
- Iranians dance in streets, thank Rouhani for nuclear deal
- Chaos in the Middle East means it’s time for an alliance with Iran
After years of talks, an Iran nuclear deal has been signed
Editor’s Note: You can view a timeline of the Iran nuclear talks here, and the full text of the agreement here.
Heather Timmons and Jason Karaian report for Quartz:
It has finally happened. Iran and six world powers have reached a deal to lift sanctions that have been in place for 12 years, in exchange for the nation’s agreement to limit its nuclear program.
Iran’s civil nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, sanctions against banks and exports will be lifted, and an arms embargo removed, to be replaced with five-year restrictions on arms-buying. In return, “under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons,” the agreement states.
“No one ever thought it would be easy. Historic decisions never are,” read a joint statement from EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif:
We know that this agreement will be subject to intense scrutiny. But what we are announcing today is not only a deal but a good deal. And a good deal for all sides—and the wider international community.
- This Iran nuclear deal is built to last
- Iran nuclear deal a clear success
- Why the Iran Deal Makes Obama’s Critics So Angry
- Obama: Iran deal not built on trust, but verification
- Iran Nuclear Deal Not Sweeping, But Best Compromise for All, Says Zarif
- Iran’s conservatives wary of nuclear deal
- Netanyahu denounces Iran nuclear deal but faces criticism from within Israel
- How do Iran’s neighbours view nuclear deal?
- Oil Prices Fall as Nuclear Deal Paves Way for Iran Exports
- Iran’s nuclear deal could allow its people to thrive again
- The reality of the Iran deal: Congress can’t ‘kill’ it
- A realist’s guide to understanding the Iran nuclear talks: Interview with Gareth Porter
- With Historic Iran Nuclear Deal Expected, Can President Obama Sell It to Congress and the Public?
- Iranians desperately await relief from financial sanctions as nuclear deal nears
- US slowdown on Iran talks has dark side
- Congressional Leaders Warn Against Reports of Iran Deal
- Iran deal would be ‘a very hard sell’ for skeptical Congress, McConnell says
- Khamenei: Iran will fight against US arrogance regardless of nuke deal
- The secret side of Iran-US relations since the 1979 revolution
- Planemakers poised for Iranian buying spree if nuclear deal reached
- Iran is about to become the biggest free-for-all since the Soviet collapse
- How the Bush Administration Created the Iran “Nuclear Confession” Scam
