Politics Update - Dec 5

8/13/2019 Politics Update - Dec 5

1/53

Aff


2/53

Politics Thumpers

Obama has no political capitalClinton sabotage

Mandel 13Is Obama an Obstacle to Clintons 16 Plans? Seth Mandel 12.02.2013http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/12/02/is-obama-an-obstacle-to-clintons-16-

plans/

Politico provides a late entry into the understatement-of-the-year competition for straight

news, reporting that Hillary Clintonis not actively trying to suppress the speculation that shewill run for president in 2016. Its true enough, but it might bemore accurate to note that she isthrowing brushback pitches even at non-candidates who have insisted theyre not consideringrunning 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 wasthe Clinton duo, not John McCain, who tried to use Obamas race against him that year.) In theirstory, Martin and Chozickwho keep finding genuinely interesting angles to the looming 2016racewrite 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 thoughher 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 StateDept.Legacy Beyond That of Globe-Trotter, Clintons supporters fret that the public will correctlyremember 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 whoviewed 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 ofCol. Muammar el-Qaddafi, they ask. If Hillary Clinton really wants to talk about her legacy inLibya, Im guessing her opponents will be more than happy to oblige. But all thiscontrastingher record with the sitting secretary of state, taking credit for current administration


3/53

successes while deflecting blame for the manyfailures, 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 worldview. 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 13With Obamacare 2.0, Obama aims to hit reset on troubled second termAFFAN CHOWDHRY;The Globe and Mail; Dec. 03 2013 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/with-

obamacare-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 hasfollowed 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 interestand sign ups inhealth-care plansthrough 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 timein some cases because Mr. Obamas law has made it illegal to denycoverage 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 presidencya 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 policythis thumps the link

Hammond 13


4/53

Iranian breakthrough and Obama foreign policy success Andrew Hammond; former US Analystat 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-policy-

success/

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 Trans-

Pacific 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 Republican-

controlled 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 re-

elected presidents, as with the Democrats now, often hold a weaker position in Congress. ThusDwight 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.


5/53

Multiple issues thump the link

Feldmann 13Is 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-duck-

president-video

WASHINGTON The L word as in lame, followed by duck is already creeping into theconversation 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 aboutthe 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. Ithas to do with the inherent powers of the presidency, says Ross Baker, a political scientist atRutgers University in New Jersey. Between now and the 20th of January 2017, there will bemany opportunities for him to do things, even if Congress doesnt cooperate. Obama hasshown 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 illegalimmigrants. 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 JenniferPalmieri 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, theresno sign that Congresss intense polarization is about to change anytime soon. Democratic

Senate majority leader Harry Reids recent deployment of the nuclear option, changing therules 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 whatmany other presidents have faced after starting their second four years. They do run intosecond-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


6/53

public went sour on the Iraq War and Mr. Bushs job approval tanked. His big second-terminitiative, 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 supportback 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 ofthe 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 whathas 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. Perhapsthe 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 13Reid, Democrats trigger nuclear option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees Paul Kaneand William Branigin, November 21, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-

poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-

precedent/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 welcomedthe 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. Thedispute has been brewing for years between Democrats and Republicans.While neither partyhas been blameless for these tactics, Obama said in a statement to reporters at the WhiteHouse, todays pattern of obstruction . . . just isnt normal; its not what our foundersenvisioned. He cited filibusters against executive branch appointments and judicial nomineeson grounds that he said were based simply on opposition to the policies that the Americanpeople voted for in the last election.This isnt obstruction on substance, on qualifications, hesaid. Its just to gum upthe works.The rule change means that federal judge nominees andexecutive-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 doesnot 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 inhaving a gun put to our head any longer, McConnell said. Some of us have been around herelong enough to know that the shoe is sometimes on the other foot. McConnell then addressed


7/53

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 in2014.In his remarks at the White House, Obama called the use of the filibuster over the fiveyears of his tenure an unprecedented pattern of obstruction in Congress thats prevented toomuch of the American peoples business from getting done. Saying that the tactic has blockedbipartisan 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 itsbeen harmful to our democracy.A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, nomatter 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 anindication that a majority of senators believe, as I believe, that enough is enough, he said. Headded: The American people deserve better than politicians who run for election telling themhow 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 inthe 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 forthe nations highest court.Reacting to Republican criticism after the vote, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) called the move a huge step in the right direction and denied that it somehow brokeSenate rules.The Senate broke no rules, he said in a floor speech. We simply used the rulesto make sure that the Senate could function and that we could get our nominees through.Thevote to change the rule passed 52 to 48. Three Democrats Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.), JoeManchin 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 majorityoverreach,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 weare once again moving down a destructive path, Levin said.Infuriated by what he sees as apattern of obstruction and delay over Obamas nominees, Senate Majority Leader Harry M.

Reid (D-Nev.) triggered the so-called nuclear optionby 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. Severalprocedural 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 afilibuster 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.


8/53

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 Committeechief, 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 athis weekly Capitol press conference. Im hopeful that theyll be able to work this out, buttheres 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 conferencecommittee 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 topass a one-month extension of the farm bill, then I think well be prepared to do that. Withoutan 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 madeit 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 long-

stalled 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, thetypically 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.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/192188-boehner-no-budget-farm-bill-deals-yethttp://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/12/04/politics/farm-bill-talkshttp://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/12/04/politics/farm-bill-talkshttp://thehill.com/homenews/house/192188-boehner-no-budget-farm-bill-deals-yet


9/53

Budget

Wont passPartisan lines

Taylor 13(Andrew Taylor is a journalist at the Associated Press) Budget Deal? Big Obstacles, New Years Deadline December6, 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 fromPelosi 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 saidThursday at ahearing 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, 2012http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/paul-ryan-patty-murray-budget-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 tocraft 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.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/budget-deal-big-obstacles-years-deadline-21115516http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/paul-ryan-patty-murray-budget-deal-100765.htmlhttp://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/paul-ryan-patty-murray-budget-deal-100765.htmlhttp://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/paul-ryan-patty-murray-budget-deal-100765.htmlhttp://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/paul-ryan-patty-murray-budget-deal-100765.htmlhttp://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/paul-ryan-patty-murray-budget-deal-100765.htmlhttp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/budget-deal-big-obstacles-years-deadline-21115516


10/53

ImmigrationWont pass - Midterms

Mascaro 13GOP 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 monthsand 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 passno political incentive for GOP

Redstate 13 Immigration Reform (or Amnesty) is ultimately DEAD this Congress published December 3, 2013 Liberatarian1is 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-openingnumbers. 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-of-

the-mind priority for constituents in most of these districts. At worst, there is opposition toadopting 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


11/53

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 couldendanger 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.


12/53

Sanctions

New sanctions comingReid push

Zengerle 13Reid 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-reid-

idUSBRE9AK0WN20131121

(Reuters) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reidsaid on Thursday he was committed to moving

ahead with a tougher Iran sanctions billwhen 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 topursue 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 placeand 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 13Congress should give negotiations on Tehran's nuclear program more time to bear fruitThe Times editorial board November 17, 2013 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-

ed--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


13/53

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 permanentmembers of the United Nations Security Council and Germany.

No sanctions now

Warrick AND OKeefe 13New Iran sanctions not likely while nuclear talks still in progress, key senators say Joby Warrickand Ed OKeefe, November 19 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-iran-sanctions-not-likely-while-nuclear-talks-still-in-progress-key-senators-

say/2013/11/19/251460a4-5163-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html

Lawmakersacknowledged 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 widespreadapproval 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 countrysrepresentatives 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 closeto a deal two weeks ago are seeking to finalize what U.S. officials describe as a first step in acomprehensive agreement on permanent limits to Irans nuclear capabilities.The planned initialstage 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 countryseconomy 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, energy-

producing purposes.The president made clear that achieving a peaceful resolution thatprevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is profoundly in Americasnational securityinterests, White House press secretary Jay Carney said. The president is determined toprevent 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 anegotiated 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


14/53

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.


15/53

Diplomacy Thumpers

Multiple issues thump diplomacy

Burns 13Diplomacy to the rescue Nicholas Burns; professor of the practice of diplomacy andinternational politics at Harvards Kennedy School of Government. He was US under secretary ofstate for political affairs from 2005-2008; Dec 5, 2013

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/12/05/obama-iran-deal-diplomacy-

rescue/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 mostdifficult 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 isntObama 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 13Obama will deliver second-term national security strategy in spring 2014 Neil MunroWhite House Correspondent 11/29/2013 http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/29/obama-will-

deliver-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 myAdministrations national security priorities for the remainder of my term. *dubbed+ thewhole-of-government strategy, the White Houses statement read. In my National SecurityStrategy 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 continueObamas 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 spreadingdanger 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-term2010 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


16/53

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 blackmailstrategy 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 much-

touted 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 AfricanRepublic 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 afundraiser in Las Vegas. Afterwards, Obama and Secretary of State blamed the attack on video-

maker 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 tothose who slander the prophet ofIslam. (RELATED: White House blames intelligence agencies for Benghazi confusion) In Turkey,Obamas extensive outreach to the Islamist government of President Recep Erdogandidnt

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.


17/53

Iran


18/53

UQ - Thumper

Asia thumps Iran specifically

Hammond 13

Iranian breakthrough and Obama foreign policy success Andrew Hammond; former US Analystat 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-policy-

success/

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.


19/53

UQWont Happen

No Iranian diplomacy now

Irish et al. 13

France, Iran trade barbs as powers struggle to reach nuclear deal JOHN IRISH, PARISA HAFEZIAND JUSTYNA PAWLAK Nov 21, 2013 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/21/us-iran-

nuclear-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 medium-

level 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 salesand 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 ENCOUNTERSThe 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 betweenthe 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


20/53

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 ofwhether 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 isreached, 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 successfulaccord proves nothingGordon 13Longer-Term Deal With Iran Faces Major Challenges MICHAEL R. GORDON November 24, 2013http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/world/middleeast/officials-say-the-toughest-work-on-

irans-nuclear-program-still-lies-ahead.html?ref=middleeast

LONDON The Obama administrations successful push for an accord that would temporarilyfreeze 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-
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/world/middleeast/officials-say-the-toughest-work-on-irans-nuclear-program-still-lies-ahead.html?ref=middleeasthttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/world/middleeast/officials-say-the-toughest-work-on-irans-nuclear-program-still-lies-ahead.html?ref=middleeasthttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/world/middleeast/officials-say-the-toughest-work-on-irans-nuclear-program-still-lies-ahead.html?ref=middleeasthttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/world/middleeast/officials-say-the-toughest-work-on-irans-nuclear-program-still-lies-ahead.html?ref=middleeast


21/53

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 ofAction, the four-page agreement specifies in terse language the steps Iran would initially taketo 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 amore 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 theInternational Atomic Energy Agency. Even the planned duration of the comprehensive follow-

up 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 haveyet 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 programto 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. Butthe 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 andtransparency. So the question appears to be not whether Iran will be allowed to continueenriching 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 UnitedStates are likely to have very different ideas of what those needs are. This, of course, will beone 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. Wewill want very small and limited, Mr. Samore said, referring to Irans enrichment efforts. Theywant industrial scale. The negotiators will confront other difficult questions regardingelements 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.


22/53

No Iran diplomacy - radicals

Naimdec 13The Case for Giving Iran's Scholar-Diplomats a Chance MOISS NAMDEC 3 2013http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/12/the-case-for-giving-irans-scholar-

diplomats-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 13How Congress Could Derail a Nuclear Deal With Iran Cameron Abadi November 25, 2013http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-25/how-congress-could-derail-a-nuclear-deal-

with-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 insistedthat 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. Themethod forremoving 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 Iranare, removing them requires only that the White House decide to stop enforcing them. Thatsexactly how the administration will be making good on its promise to Iran, as part of last weeksinterim 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


23/53

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 enrichmentprogram 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 youdefine an Iranian moderate? he said recently. Thats an Iranian whos out of bullets andmoney. In responding to the Geneva deal, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) declared: There is nowan 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 IranDeal? To the extent that this remains simple grandstanding, it neednt interrupt the ongoingnegotiations 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 nuclearprogram by keeping them in place until the Government of Iran has released all politicalprisoners, 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 tosee who would say at that point, No, thats not good enough. VIDEO: How Would Iran Make aNuclear 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-enrich-

20934263?singlePage=true

But even if squabbling over that issue is put aside for now, other differencesmay remain in the

way to an initial agreement that freezes Iran's nuclear program in exchange for some relief of

sanctionscrippling 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 weapons-

grade uranium much more quickly than Iran's main stockpile of lower-enriched, fuel-gradematerial. 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

willproduce 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


24/53

sanctionsthat such a move would "completely destroy ... the healthy and useful atmosphere"

at the talks.


25/53

Doesnt solve

Even a successful deal would accomplish anything

Shapiro 13

Obama Shifts To Foreign Policy Goals DuringSecond Term ARI SHAPIRO November 18, 2013http://www.npr.org/2013/11/18/245847591/obama-aims-to-accomplish-foreign-policy-goals-

during-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.


26/53

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 theAmerican Foreign Policy Council; November 17, 2013

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/11/17/iran-nuclear-deal-obama-kerry-

column/3619147/

Some foreign officials have charged that the terms offered to Iranin 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 forpreventing 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 radiohost at Bostons WRKO and a columnist for The Washington Times and WorldTribune.com; Dec1, 2013 http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/12/01/obamas-munich-diplomacy-paving-the-

road-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 timeafter 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 furtheraggression. In fact, Chamberlains cowardly act only increased the Nazi strongmans contemptfor 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 ofPoland, 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


27/53

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 caliphateone that they believe will usher in the coming of the 12thImam, the Shiite Muslim Christ prophesied in the apocalypse. In short, religious fanatics controlIrans 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 theocracylike 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 beenbetrayed. The deal does nothing to stop Iran from enriching uranium. Its centrifuge stockpileswill 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 IranNetanyahu willonly accept radical diplomacy

Kaye 13A different Israeli take on Iran Dalia Dassa Kaye; director of the Center for Middle East PublicPolicy at Rand Corp; Nov 14, 2013

http://irdiplomacy.ir/en/page/1924513/A+different+Israeli+take+on+Iran.html


28/53

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 fromNetanyahu'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 13Netanyahu: Crying wolf again Akbar Ganji; one of Iran's leading political dissidents and hasreceived 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 launchesmilitary 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 failBrunnstrom 13U.S. assures Israel that core Iran sanctions still in place DavidBrunnstrom; Reuters; December5, 2013 http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-assures-israel-core-iran-sanctions-still-place-

114539339.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


29/53

independent analysts believe it lacks the conventional clout to deliver lasting damage to the

distant, dispersed and well-defended Iranian facilities.


30/53

NegIran Diplomacy


31/53

UQ

Iran is the priority and diplomacy is working, but its on a razor-thin margin,

failure guarantees warShapiro 13Obama Shifts To Foreign Policy Goals During Second Term ARI SHAPIRONovember 18, 2013http://www.npr.org/2013/11/18/245847591/obama-aims-to-accomplish-foreign-policy-goals-

during-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

Politics Update - Dec 5

Documents

Transcript of Politics Update - Dec 5