Tuesday  3 March 2015  / Hour 2, Block A: Lee Smith, Hudson Institute and a Middle East correspondent for The Weekly Standard; author, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations; in re: PM Netanyahu addressed AIPAC, cheering audience of 16,000.   Next day (today), he spoke to the US Congress.   "Opportunity to inspect and verify" – after Iran's decades-long past of predation and dissimulation. Mohamed Javed Zarif: "Obama's stance is expressed in unacceptable and threatening phrases."  Why is Pres Obama so intent on pushing through this deal?  A mystery. Ben Rhodes said that this is e foreign-policy equivalent of the Affordable Care Act.  To draw down US profile, need offshore balancing.  WH says in effect that as the US exits the Middle East, Iran is the best substitute in the vacuum.  Meanwhile, Iran controls Teheran, Damascus, Beirut, Sanaa, and soonest Khartoum. WH main interest is not Iran with nukes, but the prospect of a terrorist attack such as Charlie Hebdo.  Suleimani is running the show in Tikrit.  Under current circumstances, a nuclear arms race in the Middle East appears to be inevitable.  Syria.
Five things President Obama's team thinks Benjamin Netanyahu got wrong  By Michael Crowley | http://politi.co/1KeGxoO     In his address about Iran to Congress on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a number of assertions that are challenged by Obama administration officials and some experts on Iran and the nuclear talks. Here are five key points of contention, in the form of direct quotes from Netanyahu's speech and paraphrased arguments from interviews with Obama administration officials and outside experts who defend the nuclear talks.
Netanyahu: "Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil."   Response: More sanctions are not a realistic option. Key countries like Russia and China are unlikely to support them, and the international coalition against Iran could fracture - and some may blame the U.S. for taking an overly hard line. Moreover, years of stiff sanctions have failed to halt - or even slow - the progress of Iran's nuclear program. By some estimates the program has cost Iran $100 billion. Iran's leaders have shown they are prepared to make huge sacrifices to maintain it.
 
Netanyahu: Many of Iran's Arab neighbors will respond to a nuclear deal allowing it a domestic nuclear program "by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won't change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet."   Response: Maybe not. As Iran has demonstrated, developing nuclear arms is very costly, both politically and economically. Although officials in Arab states like Saudi Arabia have warned that they will seek their own nuclear programs to match Iran's, some experts are skeptical. "[T]he prospects of Saudi 'reactive proliferation' are lower than the conventional wisdom suggests," a group of experts, including Vice President Joe Biden's current national security adviser, wrote for the Center for a New American Security in 2013.
Netanyahu: "I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would only whet Iran's appetite for more."  Response: Iran has strong reformist elements and saw huge political protests in 2009. The 2013 election of President Hassan Rouhani was a vote for change and reform against the hard-liners. Most Iranians were born before the 1979 Islamic revolution and many admire the U.S. A nuclear deal could lead to a deeper thaw and more cooperation on issues like the threat of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Also, Iran's anti-American Supreme Leader is 75 years old and has health problems; his death could present new opportunities for reformers.
Netanyahu: "[V]irtually all the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade."   Response: The nuclear deal under discussion would reportedly include a sunset clause limiting its duration to 10 or 15 years. After that time Iran would no longer face unique restrictions on its peaceful nuclear activities. But even after such a nuclear deal expires, Iran will remain bound by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it ratified in 1970, which was designed to allow countries peaceful nuclear programs while preventing them from developing atomic weapons. Under the treaty, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and cameras will continue monitoring Iran's nuclear facilities, and Iran will be legally prohibited from developing a nuclear weapon.
Netanyahu: "[W]e're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal."   Response: A significantly better deal isn't realistic. Iran will not accept it. The Supreme Leader is determined to have a large nuclear program and will make huge sacrifices to achieve it. Our negotiating partners do not want to apply more sanctions or extend the duration of the talks. And if the talks do fall apart, there will be nothing to stop Iran from dramatically expanding its nuclear program - increasing the possibility of a military confrontation. The deal is not perfect, but there is no realistic better alternative.