This is great news for everyone except the GOP/TPers [see 3d update below], who remain intent on belittling all things Obama ~ while I personally see this as far from a "done deal", I do see it as progress ~ I have not yet read thru the fact sheet [live-linked below] ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating info in the original ~ Sooz

Historic Iranian deal reached
11/23/13 10:30 PM
By Steve Benen

[Sooz says video accessible via end link]

The diplomatic talks were at times grueling. They came in fits and starts, and nearly collapsed more than once. But this evening in Geneva, the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia reached a nuclear deal with Iran.


The specific details of the agreement, reached after marathon talks that concluded at 3 a.m. local time, have not yet been released. That said, the New York Times report sketched out the broad blueprint: The freeze [of Iran’s nuclear program] would last six months, with the aim of giving international negotiators time to pursue the far more challenging task of drafting a comprehensive accord that would ratchet back much of Iran’s nuclear program and ensure that it could be used only for peaceful purposes…. According to the accord, Iran would agree to stop enriching uranium beyond 5 percent. To make good on that pledge, Iran would dismantle the links between networks of centrifuges.”

The United States has reportedly agreed to ease sanctions by $6 billion to $7 billion, and the international community will have monitors in Iran with access to nuclear facilities, including the Natanz enrichment facility.

There are, to be sure, a series of hurdles ahead. What’s more, in terms of the politics, the agreement will likely be denounced by Iranian hardliners and U.S. conservatives who believe the Iraq war was a great idea and were outraged when the U.S. disarmed Syria of chemical weapons without firing a shot.

But the usual suspects notwithstanding, tonight’s breakthrough is nevertheless a landmark diplomatic achievement that seemed largely unthinkable up until quite recently.

President Obama is scheduled to address the nation very shortly. This post will be updated.

First Update: The U.S. State Department published this six-page fact sheet with more details on the agreement itself.

Second Update: MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell described this as the most important diplomatic breakthrough between the West and Iran since the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Third Update: Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the #2 Republican in the U.S. Senate, responded to this evening’s historic diplomatic breakthrough by tweeting, “Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care.” There’s something deeply pathological going on in contemporary Republican politics, and it’s just not healthy.

Fourth Update: The video of the president’s remarks is now included in this post.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/historic-iranian-deal-reached

The rightwingnuts must be so disappointed.
They don't get to kill, torture, rape and pillage for profit.
What more proof do you need that Obama is a pinko-socialist-dictatorial-Muslim-Kenyan-unAmerican traitor?

Bibi has his nose out of joint.

Israel says Iran nuclear deal makes world 'more dangerous'
Tehran agrees to stop nuclear progress in exchange for limited sanctions relief

The Associated PressPosted: Nov 24, 2013 8:22 AM ET
Last Updated: Nov 24, 2013 10:34 AM ET

Israel's prime minister harshly condemned the international community's nuclear deal with Iran on Sunday while Western allies in the Persian Gulf were conspicuously quiet, reflecting the jitters felt throughout the Middle East over Iran's acceptance on the global stage.

Elsewhere, many welcomed the agreement as an important first step toward curbing Iran's suspect nuclear program.

Israel and Gulf countries led by Saudi Arabia have formed an unlikely alliance in their opposition to Sunday's deal, joined together by shared concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran.

While most Gulf countries remained silent in the first hours after the deal was reached in Geneva, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasted little time in criticizing it, calling it a "historic mistake" and saying he was not bound by the agreement.

Speaking to his Cabinet, Netanyahu said the world had become a "more dangerous place" as a result of the deal. He reiterated a long-standing threat to use military action against Iran if needed, declaring that Israel "has the right and the duty to defend itself by itself.

Freeze on uranium enrichment

Sunday's agreement is just the first stage of what is hoped to bring about a final deal ensuring that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon.

Under the deal, Iran will curb many of its nuclear activities for six months in exchange for limited and gradual relief from painful economic sanctions. The six-month period will give diplomats time to negotiate a more sweeping agreement.

The package includes freezing Iran's ability to enrich uranium at a maximum 5 percent level, which is well below the threshold for weapons-grade material and is aimed at easing Western concerns that Tehran could one day seek nuclear arms. International monitors will oversee Iran's compliance.

For Iran, keeping the enrichment program active was a critical goal. Iran's leaders view the country's ability to make nuclear fuel as a source of national pride and an essential part of nuclear self-sufficiency.

But Israel views any enrichment as unacceptable, saying making low-level enriched uranium weapons grade is relatively simple. It demands all enrichment be halted, and that Iran's abilities to produce uranium be rolled back.

Netanyahu also called for economic sanctions to be increased. Israel fears that Iran will trick the international community, much the way North Korea did in its march toward building a nuclear bomb.

"Today the world became a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world made a significant step in obtaining the most dangerous weapons in the world," Netanyahu said.

Israeli officials acknowledged they would have to turn their focus toward affecting the outcome of the final negotiations. Israel is not part of the Geneva talks but remains in close touch with the U.S. and other participants.

Israel feels especially threatened by Iran, given Tehran's repeated references to destroying Israel, its support for hostile militant groups on Israel's borders and its development of long-range missiles.

Israeli President Shimon Peres, a Nobel Peace laureate, expressed cautious optimism that Sunday's deal could change the region.

"I would like to say to the Iranian people: You are not our enemies and we are not yours. There is a possibility to solve this issue diplomatically. It is in your hands. Reject terrorism. Stop the nuclear program. Stop the development of long-range missiles," he said.

Another Nobel peace laureate, Mohammed ElBaradei, Egypt's pro-democracy leader and former director of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, welcomed the deal.

In a tweet on his official account, he wrote: "After decade of failed policies, world better off w/ Iran deal. Equity, trust building, respect & dialogue R key to any conflict resolution."

Quiet regional response

The muted response in the Gulf came after the rulers of Qatar and Kuwait met Saudi King Abdullah over the weekend to discuss regional issues, foremost Iran.

Saudi Arabia and Iran's regional enmity increasingly has played out as a proxy war in Syria with both countries providing lethal support for the warring sides. Saudi Arabia also accuses Iran of backing Shia unrest across the region.

Bucking the trend, the United Arab Emirates welcomed the agreement and said it was a step toward a final deal "that preserves the stability of the region and protects it against nuclear proliferation."

The UAE's financial center, Dubai, has close links to Iran.

Outside of the region, other nations welcomed the deal.

Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, called it an important step toward "providing assurances that guarantee the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program."

Britain, one of the parties in the talks, said the U.K. and its partners will implement the deal in good faith and will look for Iran to do the same.

"This is a very important change, that it is possible to agree with Iran about these matters, that the political will from all sides has been there," Foreign Secretary William Hague told Sky News.

French President Francois Hollande, whose government was also in the negotiations, said he was committed to seeing the deal succeed.

"France will stay engaged to reach a final deal in this subject. The intermediary deal adopted overnight is a step in the right direction," he said.

Iraq: a 'step forward'

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the agreement vindicated Russia's calls for a diplomatic solution.

"The result of Geneva is a win for all, showing once again that by working collectively and with mutual respect it is possible to find answers to current international challenges and threats," Putin said in a statement released by the Kremlin.

Iran's eastern neighbor Pakistan, a declared nuclear power, said the deal "should augur well for peace and security in our region and the world at large."

Pakistan's rival India, another nuclear power, also welcomed the deal.

Iran's allies, meanwhile, lined up behind the deal.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Moussawi called it a "step forward in order to solve other regional problems."

The Syrian government, which relies on Iran's support in its battle against rebels fighting to topple President Bashar Assad, also said it was proof that negotiations were the best way to resolve a conflict.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-say ... -1.2438395

Most here know that I am a non-observant Jew and strongly/deeply/forever support Israel's right to exist ~ however, to me, Bibi and his peer right-wing fanatic Israelis are significantly damaging international good will towards Israel by their behavior and demands ~

Sooz

no, what is amazing is that the GOP seems to think that the world stopped turning because of ObamaCare.

Considering the fact that Israel will be the country that pays the price if we are wrong, then I don't blame them for being pissed off. It's very easy for us to sit way over here and say hey it's worth a chance.

Its called "Diplomacy". Its a game of lies conflicting with half-truths surrounding hidden and not-so-hidden motives.

The US and Europe can say triumphantly "look, we are saving the world" when they know that they aren't (and the world wasn't in that much danger in any case). Israel can wrap itself deeper into its own paranoia for purely political purposes while secretly sitting on its own clutch of nukes, and Iran can present a more liberal face to the world, benefit its people, all as part of the internal political struggle between progressive and reactionary forces.

Lets face it. Iran will get nukes. This may, or may not, slow down that process, but it won't stop it. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Iran already has the capability to produce bombs.

Iran, after all, has no real choice. It has been forced into a situation where only nukes can guarantee its security. Look at it from their point of view. They are almost surrounded by US puppet states. Israel makes constant threats of attack and there are political forces in the US that would happily support them. Russia and China are playing their own games and can't be trusted either. What are they going to do? One glance at North Korea is enough to give them the answer.

And, of course, a nuclear armed Iran would be in a much better position than North Korea. Not because it really wants eradicate Israel (and assure its own destruction in the process), but because of all that lovely ME oil that could end up irradiated in the advent of a full-blown nuclear war in the area.

So its all really just a show.

question for you: Israel has nukes. why should Iran not have them?

mac, where have I said Iran shouldn't have nukes?

The US has nukes and is the only country to have used them against another. I think it is extremely hypocritical for us to tell anyone else that they can't have them, especially the ones we blatantly threatened with GW's axis of evil shit. Iran has as much a right to defend itself as we do and as Israel does. I hate nukes and don't trust anyone with them, especially us, but they are a fact of life.

grumpyauntjeanne wrote:
Considering the fact that Israel will be the country that pays the price if we are wrong, then I don't blame them for being pissed off. It's very easy for us to sit way over here and say hey it's worth a chance.

Well considering the very fact that you mention you would have thought Israel would have been rather more sensitive to the real politics of the region that they have up to now.
Here is an interesting appraisal published a few weeks ago.
Here’s a statistic from an official Pentagon presentation, recently revealed at a security industry conference in Augusta, Georgia. The subject was American military interventions since the end of World War II. The figures: 44 interventions – one a year – between 1945 and 1989; and another 100 – three to four a year – since the end of the Cold War.

The world has become wilder, with more American raids and invasions, since the disintegration of the bipolar American-Soviet structure. The trend is toward longer interventions, which require maintenance of ground forces – that is, a long, costly investment from a cavernous-bottomed barrel.

That is the backdrop for an important and frank statement made by a senior American official, in the current context of the dispute between U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the emerging agreement between the six world powers and Iran. Last Thursday, speaking at another security conference, this time in Washington, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel summed up the American public’s position as it is reflected in opinion polls: “No more wars, no more Middle East.” They don’t want to spill any more blood or money into the quicksand of countries in the same region as Afghanistan and Iraq.

The public, said former senator Hagel, is at the foundation of democracy. The public decides because Congress – a partner as strong as the president – must constantly heed the desires of the voters. Especially the House of Representatives, which stands for election every two years. None of its members is so invulnerable as to buck the spirit of the times.

Without willingness to put boots on the ground – not a commando force to kill Osama bin Laden that performs its task and takes quickly to the air, but divisions that get bogged down and bloodied – no regime can be toppled. Prudent planners don’t talk about air operations before they have the general outlines of the boots on the ground operation.

That is why the threats against the Iranian regime heard in the Kirya defense headquarters in Tel Aviv are so ridiculous. Israel has never managed to bring down a foreign regime, not even when it reached Beirut and Ramallah, and certainly not when it got within threatening distance of Damascus and Cairo.

Its one dubious success came from withdrawal and not conquest: in Gaza, with the fall of Fatah and rise of Hamas following Ariel Sharon’s disengagement from the region in 2005.

In most cases, the government that fell in the next election was the Israeli one. Even when there were successes on the ground, they were translated into the failure of the government’s declared policy – whether good or bad. May 2002’s Operation Defensive Shield in the territories began as an effort to stop Palestinian terror, but led to its biggest diplomatic achievement - because the Israeli army’s entry into the cities of the West Bank extracted from President George W. Bush the first support by an American president for a Palestinian state.

Netanyahu, who had tried to topple Obama with his support for Mitt Romney, now hypocritically laments Obama’s weakness. In fact, they share the same constraints. Netanyahu wanted to attack Iran, but for four years failed to garner domestic and foreign support. Obama cannot embark on an adventure without an alliance with other powers, and also without the public’s willingness to sacrifice. Today, Netanyahu’s “new deal” sounds as old-fashioned as Roosevelt’s from the 1930s, and even Roosevelt got the public and Congress to support war only after a direct and treacherous attack on American soil.

Every time Israel has opposed an interim accord as the first phase in a more general agreement, it has turned out to be a mistake. That was the case in the Suez Canal in 1971, and in the Mitla and Gidi passes in 1975. The deal between the P5+1 (the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany) and Iran is important because of the existence of a channel of negotiations. The precise formula is less important – after all, the moment that formula is reached, Netanyahu will warn of deception and breach of trust by the devious Iranians.

The American voters, who have had it with wars in the Middle East, are prepared to give diplomatic dialogue a chance. And if Netanyahu insists on standing in the way of the steamroller, he will find himself underneath it.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.558361

Ha. I stand by my statement. Israel is "rather more sensitive" to the issue, as they have a right to be. Again, I say, being that close to Iran, with threats going back and forth for a long time, makes things a bit different for them than for us. Israel is not the only country in the area and elsewhere that has trouble supporting this.

Well there is that bastion of freedom and democracy Saudi Arabia and France is lukewarm but not so much that they want to be outside the main tent. Really though what Netanyahu really fears is the loss of absolute unconditional support from the USA As this is a licence to print money.
Look at the possible scenarios in that region 1. Iran gets the bomb. This means they get a louder shout at the table but beyond that it counts for nothing as were it to use it it would ensure its own destruction.2. Israel attacks Iran in a preemptive conventional weapon strike. This would inflame the whole region and unite Israel enemies and Israel would then have the problem of having grabbed the tiger by the tail of what to do next.
3. There is a lot of jockying for position and diplomacy and liberalisation of sanctions and an increase in trade and the world will go on much as before but with the prospect of increased trade in the region perhaps reducing some of the domestic political tensions in the region.

yes, basically what cattleman already said and all of which has nothing to do with my statement. I have a lot of Iranian friends. If this makes it easier for them and their families then cool. As with most countries, I distrust the govt not the people. Israel did what it needed to do. Iran did what it needed to do and they both will continue to threaten and distrust each other. The real threat with nukes is not necessarily the govts, but radicals gaining control of them. I would not have trusted the Shah with the nukes and we have seen that Iran has its share of radicals......as does Israel.......as do we. The threats to Israel have been to wipe it off the face of the earth. Israel's threat is to keep those countries from getting a nuke to use against them. Israel has had nukes for some time now. Personally, I believe they are for the doomsday scenario rather than to attack or threaten.

i misread your post. thanks for the clarification. we are on the same page, here.