You are on page 1of 79

Iran Politics

Notes
th

The June 30 international deadline was extended, July 7th is a new deadline. All
countries have not foreclosed the idea of another extension.
July 7th deadline now extended to July 10th. All countries not agree quality is better
than time
The US has 3 internal deadlines
July 9th Congress review is 30 days.
After July 9th the review is 60 days.
No deal after September means senate can put new sanction on Iran and the
president can stop it
PC is necessary to keep enough democrats on board to prevent a veto proof
majority.

Iran 1nc
Iran nuclear deal has entered the final stage international consensus that an
agreement will be reached
Reuters 7/3/2015 Iran nuclear talks in endgame, negotiators push on sticking points,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/03/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PD1DP20150703
A year and half of nuclear talks between Iran and major powers were creeping towards the finish
line on Friday as negotiators wrestled with sticking points including questions about Tehran's past atomic research. Iran is in talks with the
United States and five other powers - Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia - on an agreement to curtail its nuclear program in exchange
for relief from economic sanctions. "We are coming to the end," said a senior Western diplomat, who added there was no plan to carry on for long
past next Tuesday. "Either we get an agreement or we don't," he said, adding that the process "remains quite difficult". Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif told Iranian state television that "a lot of progress has been made, but still various technical issues remain that need the
other party's political will". Still, all sides say a deal is within reach. U.S., European and Iranian officials, including U.S.
Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman and Iranian deputy foreign ministers Abbas Araqchi and Majid Takhteravanchi, held a six-hour
negotiating session that ended at 3 a.m. on Friday, a senior U.S. official said. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Zarif were due to hold a
bilateral session on Friday, though that meeting was delayed several times. Russia's chief negotiator Sergei Ryabkov said the

text of the

agreement was more than 90 percent complete. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi voiced confidence that the parties
would reach a mutually acceptable accord. The negotiators missed a June 30 deadline for a final agreement, but have given themselves until July
7, and foreign ministers not already in Vienna are due to return on Sunday for a final push. A deal, if agreed, would require Iran to severely curtail
uranium enrichment work for more than a decade to ensure it would need at least one year's "breakout time" to produce enough highly enriched
uranium for a single weapon, compared with current estimates of two to three months. QUESTIONS ABOUT IRAN'S PAST Western

and
Iranian officials said there were signs of a compromise emerging on one of the major sticking points:
access to Iranian sites to monitor compliance with a future agreement. A senior Iranian official in Vienna said on Thursday that Iran would sign
up to an IAEA inspection regime called the Additional Protocol, which would be provisionally implemented at the start of a deal and later ratified
by Iran's parliament. The Protocol allows IAEA inspectors increased access to sites where they suspect nuclear activity is taking place, but U.S.

The Iranian official


said Iran could also agree to a system of "managed access" - which is strictly limited to protect legitimate military or
officials say it is insufficient because Iran has in the past stalled by dragging out negotiations over access requests.
industrial secrets - to relevant military sites.

Obama PC key has enough to hold democrats on board now


Scott Johnson 7/3/2015 GOODNIGHT VIENNA,
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/goodnight-vienna-3.php
The political problem is straightforward: for

the final deal, and especially for the administrations core claim that scientists confirm a
hinges on the success of a dozen similar technological quick-fixes. At least a couple of those
too-cute-by-half mechanisms are also likely to fail. In evaluating the deal Congress will want assurances that the Obama
administration will hold Iran accountable for noncompliance. So its politically problematic for State Department
one-year breakout time, everything

officials to keep declaring that the Iranians came close enough, so who cares? Maybe the State Department will come up with something else
before the Iranian cheating is overtaken by events. But theyre on the wrong side of this debate. Every year the Congressional Research Service
publishes a report on the JPOA. Every year the State Department publishes those CRS reports on state.gov. Those reports have no ambiguity.
Heres the language: Iran is also to, in effect, freeze its production of enriched uranium hexafluoride containing up to 5% uranium-235 by
converting the material to uranium dioxide. Tehran would take this step when it has completed the necessary facility, which is currently under
construction. The 2013 and 2014 reports live here. The

conventional wisdom remains that the President retains


sufficient political capital to hold a sufficient number of Congressional Democrats on
whatever Iran deal negotiators bring home. But if lawmakers were evaluating the agreement based on whether the Obama
administration will even enforce it, 100% of the evidence cuts the other way. In the last 20 months, the administration has never called out Iranian
cheating, and has instead played Irans lawyer on half a dozen different JPOA and UN sanctions violations.

Congressional repudiation of the deal will provoke a US-Iran war


Susan Shaer 7/2/2015 (Executive Director of WAND, Women's Action for New Directions. Win
Without War co-chair) The Iran Deal and Unicorns, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susanshaer/the-iran-deal-and-unicorn_b_7717666.html
Members of Congress seeking the unicorn option risk undermining the unity of the P5+1 and the

entire sanctions regime. As Britain's chief negotiator Ambassador Peter Westmacott said, "[I]f the Congress was to
make it impossible for the agreement to be implemented...then I think the international community
would be pretty reluctant, frankly, to contemplate a ratcheting up further of the sanctions against Iran." In
other words, the sanctions regime, held together by some begrudging international partners including India, Japan, South Korea
and China, would likely not survive a scenario where the United States is faulted for a breakdown in negotiations. Yet, congressional
intervention that would undermine the U.S. position is a very real possibility. In fact, Congress has set up a process by
which, shortly after a deal is completed, it can take up legislation to disapprove of that deal. It
can also prevent the Obama administration from lifting sanctions. Doing so threatens, in a very real way,
to undo all of the progress that has been made over the last two years of negotiations. It could be a spark that
unravels the sanctions regime, provokes Iran to double down on its nuclear program, and ultimately
escalates the situation to a crisis, leading to calls for war on Iran.

Escalates to major power war


Trabanco 9 Independent researcher of geopoltical and military affairs (1/13/09, Jos Miguel
Alonso Trabanco, The Middle Eastern Powder Keg Can Explode at anytime,
**http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11762**)
In case of an Israeli and/or American attack against Iran, Ahmadinejad's government will certainly respond. A
possible countermeasure would be to fire Persian ballistic missiles against Israel and maybe even against American military bases in the regions.

Teheran will unquestionably resort to its proxies like Hamas or Hezbollah (or even some of its Shiite allies it has
in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia) to carry out attacks against Israel, America and their allies, effectively setting in flames a
large portion of the Middle East. The ultimate weapon at Iranian disposal is to block the Strait of Hormuz. If such chokepoint is
indeed asphyxiated, that would dramatically increase the price of oil, this a very threatening retaliation because it will bring intense financial and
economic havoc upon the West, which is already facing significant trouble in those respects. In short, the necessary conditions

for a
major war in the Middle East are given. Such conflict could rapidly spiral out of control and
thus a relatively minor clash could quickly and dangerously escalate by engulfing the whole
region and perhaps even beyond. There are many key players: the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Persians and their
respective allies and some great powers could become involved in one way or another (America,
Russia, Europe, China). Therefore, any miscalculation by any of the main protagonists can trigger something
no one can stop. Taking into consideration that the stakes are too high, perhaps it is not wise to be playing with fire right in the
middle of a powder keg.

UQ

UQ 2nc PC Key
Political capital is critical to preventing 67 vote override ONLY a strong president
gets a Iran nuclear deal
Alexander Bolton 7/6/15 Dems raise pressure on Obama over Iran nuclear,
deal, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/247003-dems-raise-pressure-on-obama-over-irannuclear-deal
Top Senate Democrats

are issuing hard-line demands for a nuclear deal with Iran, highlighting the
challenge facing the Obama administration in securing congressional approval for one of the
presidents top foreign policy priorities. The administration faces a Tuesday deadline for securing a deal with Iran, and it
must send text of the deal to Congress by Thursday to trigger a 30-day clock for lawmakers to review it. If Thursdays deadline is missed,
lawmakers will have 60 days to consider it, which could allow opposition to build. It

does not appear that the emerging deal


will meet all of the demands from Republicans and Democrats, including calls for anytime, anywhere
inspections in Iran. That could make it tougher for the administration to prevent 67 senators from
voting to disapprove of it. If the deal doesnt meet the conditions set forth in the bipartisan statement organized by the Washington
Institute, the administration could face some serious problems persuading Democrats to stick with the deal, said
Patrick Clawson, the director of research at the Washington Institute on Near East Policy. The group
organized a bipartisan statement in late June laying out conditions supported by influential Democrats, such as Sen. Ben Cardin (Md.), the senior
Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Bipartisan Senate support for a resolution of disapproval would encourage House
Democrats to vote for it, though

an intense lobbying campaign by the administration could be enough


to quash a rebellion. It would have momentum, but I think a lot is going to depend on everything that accompanies this.
The narrative is completely owned by the White House here, said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president
for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. She says it will be difficult to
assess how the deal will be interpreted on Capitol Hill because administration officials will dominate the narrative in the early days.

Theyve already got their people out there lobbying very aggressively and the president has an
enormous amount of power in this country, frankly much more power than the Congress at this point,
she added. He has the power to affect the fortunes of individual members of Congress. It calls for
inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency to have timely and effective access to any sites in Iran they need to visit in order to
verify Irans compliance. It says the deal should also grant inspectors access to the military dimensions of Irans nuclear research, including the
ability to take samples and interview scientists and government officials as required for their investigation of Irans past and ongoing nuclear
weaponization activities. And, crucially, it warns that sanctions relief must not occur until the IAEA confirms Iran has taken steps to comply
with the deal. Cardin laid out similar criteria during an interview Sunday. You have to have full inspections, you have to have inspections in the
military sites. You have to be able to determine if they use covert activities in order to try to develop a nuclear weapon, he said on ABCs This
Week. He said sanctions relief should be pegged to the actual progress they are making, Sen. Bob Menendez (N.J.), a senior Democrat on the
Foreign Relations panel, said Iran must agree to anytime, anywhere inspections and cautioned sanctions can only be lifted incrementally.
Significant limitations on research and development and resolution of military dimensions of Irans program, thorough access to scientists,
documents and places and anytime, anywhere inspections are critical to the viability of a nuclear agreement with Iran, he wrote in a June 26
letter to Secretary of State John Kerry. Menendez wrote that any deal that allows sanctions to be lifted before Iran meets its obligations and that
does not require intrusive inspections is a bad deal that threatens the national security of America. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.)
last week endorsed the benchmarks set by the Washington Institutes letter. A final agreement must prevent Iran from producing, procuring, or
otherwise acquiring fissile material for a nuclear weapon during the period of the agreement and afterwards and must include a strict
enforcement mechanism and clear consequences for violations, he wrote in a statement. Sen. Chris Coons (Del.), a Democratic member of the
Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), an influential centrist Democrat, have also drawn bright-line requirements for the
deal. In any agreement, Iran must fully submit to intrusive inspections of its illicit nuclear program, fully disclose its past military work, and
dismantle any capacity to develop and build a nuclear weapon in the future, Coons said in a statement after the midterm elections. In a
November statement, Warner called for intrusive, any-time inspections of all Iranian facilities and phased-in sanctions relief. Other

Democrats say they will wait for the administration to submit the deal to Congress before weighing
in. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were alarmed by statements from Irans Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei pulling back from the
tentative agreement released in April.

Will pass and Obama PC key to prevent override


Carol Morello and Karen DeYoung 7/8/2015 (diplomatic correspondent for The Washington
Post AND associate editor and senior national security correspondent for the Washington Post)
U.S. and Iran resume talks after another deadline lapses. The Washington Post,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-and-iran-resume-talks-afteranother-deadline-lapses/2015/07/08/ac7f5d8f-d57b-4194-a3e2-6cdd08486329_story.html?
tid=hpModule_04941f10-8a79-11e2-98d9-3012c1cd8d1e
But other officials

projected a measure of optimism. In an interview in Tehran with the Guardian newspaper, Ayatollah Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani, Irans former president and still a powerful political figure, said the United States and Iran had broken a
taboo after decades of hostility by negotiating face-to-face instead of through intermediaries. Iran is dead serious, Rafsanjani said.
If the other parties are as serious, we will have an agreement for sure. That Iran is talking directly to the U.S. is a
good move. We have broken a taboo. The failure to reach an agreement by now will have political ramifications in Washington. Leading
lawmakers, many of whom have expressed concern about concessions they believe the administration is making to Iran, were left with few
grounds to criticize the deadline extension, since many of them have accused negotiators of rushing toward a bad deal. "I'm thankful they're doing
what weve requested, and to please, on these last remaining items, take your time and try to get them as good as you can knowing the context is
not that great," Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Tuesday on MSNBC. Corker, who spearheaded the passage of legislation providing the review
period, said he was fairly despondent over remaining issues that have not been resolved. Several of those issues were raised late Tuesday in a
letter sent to Obama by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who questioned U.S. ability, under terms reportedly being negotiated, to find Iran guilty of
violating the agreement and reinstate sanctions. If a dispute over Irans compliance arises, and the consequence is merely votes and referrals to
the [United Nations] Security Council and more votes, then the burden of proof, for all practical purposes, will be on the United States to
demonstrate Irans noncompliance, Sasse wrote in the letter, which his office released Wednesday. That is a recipe for failure, it said. U.S.
negotiators have said that the triggers for a snap-back of sanctions, and the procedures for judging compliance, are still being negotiated. White
House press secretary Josh Earnest indicated that the administration is unconcerned about extension of the review. Lawmakers will be on summer
recess for at least 30 days of the review period, he told reporters Tuesday. Additional delay, he said, doesnt necessarily ensure additional
scrutiny. Its not as if Congress is going to spend the entire 60 days studying the agreement," Earnest said. On Tuesday evening, Obama told
Senate Democrats invited to the White House for cocktails of his upcoming agenda that included assurances on Iran. Several lawmakers
said that the president repeated his pledge that he would agree to no deal that failed to block every possible Iranian pathway to building a nuclear
weapon. Congress does not have the ability to block Obama from using his executive powers to make the agreement, and the

White
House has expressed confidence it could muster enough Democratic votes to prevent an override
of his guaranteed veto, should the review result in resolution of disapproval.

UQ 2nc Will Pass Wall


Deal coming disputes will be resolved
AlJazeera 7/9/2015 World powers and Iran 'on verge of nuclear deal',
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/world-powers-iran-verge-historic-nuclear-deal150709135007913.html
Officials say world powers and Iran are close to a nuclear deal that would end 12-year dispute over Tehran's ambitions.
Iran and six world powers meeting in Vienna are said to be close to an historic nuclear agreement that could resolve a dispute that lasted more
than 12 years over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Russian Deputy Foreign

Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Thursday that he


could not rule out the possibility of an agreement in the coming hours, even if there was still
doubts over some of the finer details of the deal and if it could be resolved by the end of the day. Iran's Deputy
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said the main text of the agreement, as well as five technical annexes, were "around
96 percent complete." While the lifting of sanctions was largely agreed, Araqchi said Tehran's demand for an end to a UN Security
Council arms embargo was among the most contentious unresolved points. But an Iranian state broadcaster Press TV cited an Iranian official as
saying it was unlikely an agreement would be reached on Thursday. A senior Western diplomat similarly also said it was "very doubtful" the talks
would finish on Thursday. Over the past two weeks, Iran, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China have twice extended a
deadline for completing a long-term deal under which Tehran would curb sensitive nuclear activities for more than a decade in exchange for
sanctions relief. Western countries accuse Iran of seeking the capability to build nuclear weapons, while Tehran says its programme is peaceful. A
deal would depend on Iran accepting curbs on its nuclear programme in return for the easing of economic sanctions imposed by the United
Nations, United States and European Union. A successful deal could be the biggest milestone in decades towards easing hostility between Iran
and the United States. It would also be a political success for both US President Barack Obama and Iran's President Hassan Rouhani. The current
round of talks has blown through two deadlines already and has been extended until Friday, but the Obama administration must submit an
agreement to Congress before Thursday turns to Friday in Washington if it wants to avoid an extended legislative review. If the administration
misses that target, the congressional review period will double from 30 to 60 days, possibly delaying the sanctions relief that the US would have
to give to Iran under the terms of an agreement. US Secretary of State John Kerry

and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad


Javad Zarif have been meeting daily for two weeks to overcome the last remaining obstacles to a deal. French Foreign Minister
Laurent Fabius and his British and German counterparts have also rejoined the negotiations.

Major differences can be resolved talks key


Mary Alice Salinas 7/8/2015 Senior US Official: Iran Nuclear Deal Hinges on Tough
Choices, Payvand, http://www.payvand.com/news/15/jul/1046.html
VIENNA, AUSTRIA - A senior U.S. official said Tuesday a

nuclear deal with Iran is still possible, if parties involved


in the negotiations return to the table ready to make tough political choices. "We are probably closer than weve
ever been because there is more of an alignment of that moment in history," the official, who did not wish to be named, told reporters in
Vienna, adding We dont know if we can get there. Marie Harf, spokeswoman for the U.S. delegation gave similar
indications earlier in the day telling reporters We've made substantial progress in every area, but this
work is highly technical and high stakes for all of the countries involved. The comment followed an early morning meeting between U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and other top diplomats in search of a breakthrough. Later, the
so-called P5 +1 nations, which includes the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, announced that they could not reach a
comprehensive agreement by a July 7 deadline, agreed upon last week when a June 30 deadline expired, and would continue talks in Vienna.
Talks have now been extended until Friday. Iranian negotiators had said there are no definitive deadlines. And Harf said the United States is
"frankly more concerned about the quality of the deal than we are about the clock." While acknowledging that "significant differences" remain,

the White House said the talks created an opportunity to resolve the major differences that still
exist and that it was worth continuing if a deal is close. However, a Western diplomat in Vienna said the nuclear talks are not "open- ended" and
have just been extended for the last time. The envoy from an unnamed country told reporters Tuesday that "It's difficult to see why and how we
could go on any longer. Either this works in the next 48 hours or it doesn't." Sticking points Officials in Vienna say three main sticking points
remain to be hashed out: sanctions, a new draft U.N. resolution, and terms of inspections of Irans nuclear sites. The agreement between Iran and
the six powers would cut Iran's uranium enrichment program to keep it from being able to build a nuclear weapon. Sanctions that have wrecked
the Iranian economy would be eased and eventually lifted. But a key stumbling block continued to be a push by Tehran to eliminate an arms ban
and ballistic missile restrictions contained in a new draft resolution being crafted by the P5+1 for the U.N. Security Councils consideration. And
Iran is also balking at Western demands for inspections of its military sites to verify it is living up to the deal. And We all believe the restrictions
have to stay on the United Nations Security Council resolution, the U.S. official explained. The duration of that, the nature of it, how we will
proceed, what the United Nations Security Council resolution is like, all of that is part of this negotiation. German Foreign Minister FrankWalter Steinmeier added that Iran needed to "help build trust" by complying with monitoring demands. "This means that we have to have
monitoring possibilities available to have an overview as to whether Iran is fulfilling its obligations. We need to be sure that we have transparency

Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov said questions pertaining to easing sanctions had been resolved, according to the
concerning the promises Iran is making here," he told German broadcaster ARD. As he was leaving the talks,

Russian news agency RIA Novosti. Lavrov indicated there was still more negotiating to do, and that he planned to return to Vienna later in the
week. Everything

is moving, moving, Lavrov said.

Will pass momentum


BBC News 7/9/2015 Iran nuclear: US 'will not be rushed over deal' Kerry,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33457805
US Secretary of State John Kerry has said that America and other major powers are not in a rush to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran. But he
warned that the so-called P5+1 (US, UN, Russia, UK, France and Germany) would not wait indefinitely. Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted: "We're working hard, but not rushed, to get the job done." The pace at which sanctions are lifted is a major issue
at talks in Vienna. Pressure is mounting on world powers and Iran to reach a deal on its nuclear programme and avoid
the issue becoming bogged down in the US Congress. Congress has 30 days to review any agreement as long as it receives the text by midnight
Washington time (04:00 GMT on Friday). Failing that the review period will be 60 days, which will delay the lifting of US sanctions. 'Critical
time' "We're here because we believe we are making real progress," Mr Kerry toldeporters in the Austrian capital
Vienna on Thursday. But he cautioned that "we are not going to sit at the negotiating table forever" and that he was prepared to "call an end" to
nuclear talks with Iran if "tough decisions" are not made. "We also recognise that we shouldn't get up and leave simply because the clock strikes
midnight. And I emphasise, given that the work here is incredibly technical and that the stakes are very very high, we will not rush and we will
not be rushed." Mr Kerry said that any deal had to withstand the test of time. "It is not a test of a matter of days or weeks or months, it's a test for
decades, that's our goal here." null Mr

Zarif, who leads the Iranian negotiators, earlier said he wanted to reach a
deal. And he added on his Twitter page: "Mark my words; you can't change horses in the middle of a stream." Separately, French
Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said he would be staying in Vienna to continue the negotiations, saying that "things are
going in the right direction". EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini described the talks as "sometimes heated" but overall
"constructive".

UQ Deal pass US domestic


Will pass but PC is critical to keep democrats on board
Jeremy Diamond 6/30/2015 Iranian nuclear negotiations extended, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/politics/iran-foreign-minister-javad-zarif-final-deal/
Negotiations with Iran over nuclear capability have been extended to July 7, a U.S. State Department official said Tuesday.
Tuesday had been Iran's self-imposed deadline to reach a deal with the six world powers (including the U.S.) with whom it is negotiating the
future of its nuclear program. That group called the P5+1 nations, and Iran have decided to allow more time for negotiations to reach a long-term
solution on the Iran nuclear issue, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf announced in an email. Returning

to Vienna for the

final stretch of nuclear negotiations after getting instructions from Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Tuesday
he was looking to seal a final deal. "I'm here to get a final deal and I think we can," Zarif said. Zarif's comments came as he
emerged from a meeting Tuesday morning with Secretary of State John Kerry that lasted more than an hour. Negotiators were not expected to
reach a final deal by the end of the day, though, instead aiming to broker a final deal to curb Iran's nuclear program for at least 15 years by July 9
-- the deadline Congress has imposed to keep its review period to 30 instead of a lengthy 60 days. The

White House is hoping to

achieve a deal by the ninth to avoid a lengthy political battle in Washington that could skew public opinion -- and
votes in Congress -- against an eventual deal. Republicans in Congress are warning that the Obama administration is
preparing to broker a bad deal, one they say would not have sufficient checks on Iran's nuclear program and could threaten the
safety of the U.S.'s top ally in the Middle East, Israel. After the review period, Congress will vote to either approve or
disapprove of an eventual nuclear agreement with Iran. But Republicans would need to rally more than a
dozen Democrats to override President Barack Obama's veto in order to reject a deal -- no easy feat.

Will pass political will on both sides prefer this evidence, it is predictive
Daniel R. DePetris 6/30/2015 (analyst at Wikistrat, Inc., a geostrategic consulting firm, and a
freelance researcher) The Day After Tomorrow: Preparing for the Aftermath of an Iranian
Nuclear Deal, The National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-day-after-tomorrowpreparing-the-aftermath-iranian-13219
Predictably, the

last few days approaching the June 30 deadline have been the toughest and most politically
fraught for all of the countries currently at the table. How fast the Iranian Government will receive economic sanctions relief; the
amount of money Tehran will receive once a nuclear deal is signed; the extent to which IAEA inspectors will be granted access to Irans military
facilities across the country; and the mechanism to ensure that an Iranian violation will be met with a quick re-imposition of sanctions are all open
questions. In fact, the same question can often elicit dramatically different answers depending upon who is askedif Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had
his way, the Iranians would feel economic relief on the very same day that the agreement is signed. U.S. officials, meanwhile, are adamant that
any loosening of economic sanctions is tied specifically to Iranian compliance. And, of course, President Rouhani has his own assessment of the
situation, telling reporters during a news conference that it will take only a couple of months for the Iranians to access the money that has until
now been frozen in overseas bank accounts. This

is to say nothing of the political dynamics in Washington,


where a large segment of the U.S. Congress remains concerned about the type of deal that the Obama
administration is negotiating and the amount of concessions that the White House is willing to provide to a state
sponsor of terrorism. Yet, even with all of these issues yet to be sufficiently resolved, there is a reasonable enough
chance that the United States, its negotiating partners, and the Iranians will in fact find the political will
necessary to sign on the dotted line. For the first time in the tumultuous 35-year history between the United
States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, officials in both countries are openly talking about the possibility of
coming together to resolve a conflict. This shift in tone by itself is a vast improvement in the relationship.

Will pass GOP political opposition has pushed democratic fence sitters behind the
deal
Joseph Cirincione 7/3/2015 (president of the Ploughshares Fund, member of Secretary of State
John Kerrys International Security Advisory Board) Lou Dubose interviewed Cirincione at the
Conference on World Affairs on April 10, On Iran, Obama Will Prevail, International Policy
Digest, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2015/07/03/on-iran-obama-will-prevail/

There are three circles of opposition. One is people who are genuinely concerned about some of these
provisions. The second, and larger group, is the political group. And thats what you see in the Senate today.
People who dont want to give a Democratic president anything. If Obama came forward with a cure for cancer,
they would oppose it. The third group, and this is what you see outside the Senate, is the ideological opposition. People who
object, for whom this is anathema, because it doesnt change the Iranian regime. And the whole point of raising the nuclear issue for them wasnt
to stop the nuclear program. It was to stop the regime. For them, it is the equivalent of what Paul Wolfowitz said WMD was back in 2003. It was
the one thing we could all agree on. It was the rationale for going forward. But inside

the Senate, it is fiercely political and, I


think, you are likely to see the Republican Party try to kill this deal almost exclusively on political
grounds. The good news: I dont think they are going to succeed. Because [Republican
opposition] has pushed Democrats who are concerned about the deal away from the opposition.
The president is going to get this deal.

Obama can maintain enough democratic support now PC is key


Al Jazeera 6/29/15 Iran nuclear deal tough sell for US Congress, https://enmaktoob.news.yahoo.com/iran-nuclear-deal-tough-sell-us-congress-072617315.html
Washington, DC - As

negotiators in Vienna push to complete the final terms of a nuclear agreement with
Iran, President Barack Obama faces a crucial test at home - winning over a sceptical and potentially troublesome US
Congress. Opposition from Israel and lack of support from Saudi Arabia could help sink a deal in
Congress if negotiators fail to achieve ironclad rules preventing Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Recent comments from Iran suggest
that will be a challenge. At the same time, if Iran succeeds in concluding a viable UN agreement, continuing opposition by the US Congress could
leave the US isolated as major trading partners - the European Union and China - move forward with sanctions relief. " No

matter how
good the agreement is, it is going to come under attack," Shibley Telhami, a professor at the
University of Maryland told Al Jazeera. "It is going to be a fight and this is what the Obama
administration is bracing for." Iran and negotiators for six world powers, the so-called P5+1 - US, Russia, China, UK, France,
and Germany - are meeting in Vienna, Austria, to conclude more than two years of talks. The parties reached a framework for a deal in Lausanne,
Switzerland, on April 2. Getting

an agreement acceptable both to the White House and Congress may


require last-minute haggling, even brinkmanship. Gaps remain between the sides over future access by international
inspectors to suspect sites in Iran and how quickly sanctions will be lifted. Iran's top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a formal address on
June 23 that Iran would not dismantle its nuclear capability and wouldn't accept a ban on research and development over the next 10 years. His
remarks followed approval by Iran's parliament of a law prohibiting international inspections of military sites. Congressional opposition In
Washington, the Republican-led Congress has already set up roadblocks, ramming through a law earlier this year that prevents Obama from
lifting any US sanctions on Iran for 60 days after a deal while Congress reviews any agreement. Key US lawmakers expect the talks in Vienna to
extend past the self-imposed June 30 deadline. Political terms of a hastily worked out arrangement with the White House means Congress can't
sink a deal with Iran unless its terms are so weak that more than two-thirds of lawmakers vote against it. " Most

likely, House and


Senate have the votes to disapprove the deal but not to override a presidential veto," said Tom Z
Collina, policy director at the Ploughshares Fund, an anti-nuclear weapons group. For now, Obama has the
support he needs from his own party to continue with the talks. Democrats have signalled they will
support the president so long as any agreement with Iran meets key criteria, including so called "snap-back" sanctions which can be
renewed quickly in the event of violations. Both Democrats and Republicans warn a failure by the administration to win key safeguards from Iran
on inspections could undermine Obama's position. "I can't imagine a deal getting through the Congress that does not have anytime, anywhere
inspection requirements including military facilities," Senator Lindsey Graham, a leading Republican, told Al Jazeera. "The notion that we
wouldn't have inspections on military bases is just a non-starter," Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat, told Al Jazeera. "It's the covert path we are
most concerned about," Kaine added. "We recognise that it's not just what the United States wants. It's whether Iran will get to where we need
them to get to," Senator Ben Cardin, a senior Democrat who brokered White House negotiations with Republicans on the Iran deal, told Al
Jazeera. Opponents in the US Congress will try to open up daylight between what the US and its allies expect, and what Iran eventually agrees to.
Iran's critics believe they can turn underlying scepticism into outright opposition. "What will happen with extended debate and discussion on this
is it will have a definite effect on American public opinion," Senator John McCain, the influential Republican chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, told Al Jazeera. What the risk-averse members of Congress must weigh is that if a nuclear agreement is accepted by the UN,
US refusal to lift unilateral sanctions would appear unreasonable, and the multilateral sanctions regime that brought Iran to the table would
collapse.

PC is limited and key to US-Iran nuclear deal


Carol Lee 7/2/2015 White House Gears Up for Domestic-Policy Offensive, Wall Street

Journal, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/02/white-house-gears-up-for-domestic-policyoffensive/
The renewed domestic offensive, coupled with an aggressive front on foreign-policy issues, are a reflection
of a president who is, as former senior White House adviser David Axelrod recently told The Wall Street Journal, feeling the
pressures of time. The challenge for Mr. Obama will be in the places where his domestic and foreign policy agendas intersect. The
president has limited political capital in Congress. And he needs lawmakers to backor at least not
amass a veto-proof majority opposition toa nuclear deal with Iran if one is finalized in coming days. Hell also need
to generate enough support among Republican and Democratic lawmakers for lifting the embargo on Cuba, which on Wednesday he again called
on Congress to do as he announced finalized plans to open an American embassy in Havana. Its unclear if Mr. Obama will also be able to
persuade Congress to act on issues such as infrastructure, business taxes and the criminal justice system. But White House officials have been
instructed to make a strong effort. We are going to squeeze every last ounce
the privilegeas long as I have the privilege of holding this office, Mr. Obama said Tuesday.

of progress that we can make when I have

UQ Deal pass international new deadline


Deal within reach, both sides agree
BBC News 7/7/2015 Iran nuclear talks to continue past deadline,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33424502
Talks between world powers and Iran on a comprehensive nuclear agreement will continue past Tuesday's deadline, the EU's
foreign policy chief says. Federica Mogherini told reporters in Vienna that the negotiations would carry on "for the next couple of days".
Meetings took place late into Monday night, with foreign ministers grappling to resolve outstanding issues and warning a deal was not yet
assured. The talks have intensified since the previous deadline was missed last week. The so-called P5+1 - the US, UK, France,
China and Russia plus Germany - want Iran to scale back its sensitive nuclear activities to ensure that it cannot build a nuclear weapon. Iran,
which wants crippling international sanctions lifted, has always insisted that its nuclear work is peaceful. 'Flexible deadline'

Representatives of both sides said a deal was closer than ever before as foreign ministers arrived at Vienna's
Palais Coburg hotel on Monday. But when the talks broke up in the early hours of Tuesday, it seemed likely that the midnight (22:00 GMT)
deadline would be missed. Ms Mogherini said the negotiations, which she has been chairing, would continue but insisted: "This does not mean
we are extending our deadline." "We are interpreting in a flexible way our deadline, which means that we are taking the time, the days we still
need, to finalise the agreement," she added. The

Italian diplomat said that a deal was "something which is still


possible even if we are now getting into the difficult time", with several issues to resolve. A
spokesman for the Iranian delegation told the AFP news agency it had "no deadline". US Secretary of State John Kerry had wanted an agreement
finalised by Wednesday at the latest so that it could be submitted to the US Congress for approval by Thursday. If a deal is presented later, the
review period will double from 30 days to 60. Russian Foreign Minister

Sergei Lavrov said "very significant

progress" had been made at the talks. "We singled out eight or nine issues, fewer than 10, where we need to add the finishing
touches," Russian state news agency RIA Novosti quoted him as saying. Mr Lavrov believed a long-term accord could be
ready "in a few days". "Everyone's focused on securing good-quality agreements. And there is
every reason to believe that we'll achieve that," he said, according to the Interfax news agency.

Agreement coming remaining issues being resolved and completion closer than it
has ever been
Paul Richter 7/7/2015 Iran nuclear talks extended again; Friday new deadline, LA Times,
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-nuclear-talks-extended-20150707-story.html
Six leading world

powers and Iran acknowledged that they would miss a midnight Tuesday deadline for wrapping up a
comprehensive nuclear deal, forcing them to extend talks for the fifth time in the last year. Diplomats who last week emphasized the
urgency of finishing work by the deadline said the important goal now was producing a sound deal. They set a new
deadline of Friday, but acknowledged they were not certain when the work would be concluded. Were more concerned about a
quality deal than we are about the clock, said Marie Harf, strategic communications advisor to Secretary of State John
F. Kerry. Weve made substantial progress in all areas, but this work is highly technical and there are high stakes
for all the countries involved. We are taking these negotiations day to day, she said. Missing the latest deadline means that the Obama
administration may also fail to meet a congressional deadline of midnight Thursday for transmitting the deal and supporting documentation to
lawmakers. If that deadline is broken, the period that Congress has given itself to review the deal will be extended to 60 days from 30 days. The
administration has been eager to meet that deadline, fearing an extension would allow time for critics to maneuver to undermine the agreement.
But officials have said in recent days that missing the deadline would not be a serious setback. Some of the
foreign ministers who had arrived in the Austrian capital Sunday and Monday to try to resolve politically sensitive issues began to leave. Kerry,
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said they would stay to continue
work on the document and its voluminous technical annexes. Iran and the six world powers -- the United States, France, Britain, Germany, Russia
and China -- are seeking a deal that would ease sanctions on Iran if it agrees to restrictions aimed at preventing it from obtaining a nuclear bomb.

Diplomats have said since this round began June 26 that they had narrowed the remaining issues to three or
four. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday that the remaining issues were now less than 10. The negotiators missed
deadlines in July and November of last year, and in March and June of this year. The negotiations have always moved ahead
and are now closer to completion than they have ever been.

UQ Deal pass international sticking points


International deal by July 9th Sanctions and Arms embargo resolved
Gareth Porter 7/8/2014 (investigative historian and journalist specializing in U.S. national
security policy) Iranian Nuclear Deal Edges Closer as Main Obstacles Overcome: Sources,
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2015/07/07/iranian-nuclear-deal-edges-closer-as-mainobstacles-overcome-sources/
Iranian officials reveal to MEE that real

progress has been made with a deal likely emerging as early as July
9 VIENNA As the US and Iranian negotiators move toward completion of a historic deal in Vienna, the lifting of sanctions against
Iran which is the most difficult outstanding issue in the talks is on its way to being resolved,
Western and Iranian sources close to the nuclear negotiations told MEE. With talks being extended until July
10 and Iranian sources suggesting that a deal could be penned as early as the evening of July 9, it appears that the United States
and Iran have agreed on most of the provisions in the agreement governing the lifting of
unilateral and UN Security Council sanctions. The one sanctions issue that has remained as a
stumbling block in the past few days involves the text of the UN Security Council resolution that both sides
have agreed will replace a series of resolutions passed between 2006 and 2010. Until now, the P5+1 (the
five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) have insisted that the text of the new resolution include a continuation of the
conventional arms embargo that was imposed by a 2007 Security Council resolution. But Iran has been objecting strenuously. An

Iranian
official who could not be identified under the rules of his briefing to the press on Monday, revealed the Iranian negotiation position on the
issue. The arms embargo should not be part of the comprehensive plan, the official said. There is no evidence
that the arms embargo had any relation to the nuclear issue. However, the Iranian position appears to have been strengthened by deep divisions
over the issue among the six powers. The P5+1 minus Germany which is not a permanent member of the Security Council met on Monday
night to review their negotiating position on the arms embargo, according to a senior European diplomat who asked not to be identified, because
of the extreme sensitivity of the discussions. At the talks, the Russians and Chinese were firmly opposed to its inclusion, and France was
wavering, the European diplomat added. The

absence of a consensus for the position taken by the six powers


up to now suggests that the last major issue relating to sanctions removal will now be resolved.

All sticking points resolved deal will happen, only a question of US passage
Michael Wilner 7/4/2015 Breakthroughs appear in Vienna on Iran nuclear talks, The
Jerusalem Post, http://www.jpost.com/landedpages/printarticle.aspx?id=407966
Three major sticking points obstructing world powers and Iran from making an historic nuclear
deal appear to have been resolved by their technical experts over the last 48 hours. The US, Britain, France,
Russia, China and Germany have reportedly agreed with Iran on a mechanism that would
allow sanctions to snap back in place should Tehran violate any final nuclear agreement. Instead of
restarting automatically, a committee made up of representatives from each nation would vote on whether sanctions should be reimposed in the
event of "significant noncompliance." A majority would decide the vote. US Secretary of State John Kerry and his delegation remained largely
silent from their Imperial Hotel in Vienna through another tense day of negotiations, just blocks away from the Palais Coburg, where the main
negotiations are taking place. Kerry and US Secretary of Energy Moniz met with their Iranian counterparts over the weekend. World

powers are negotiating with Iran to cap, restrict, monitor and partially roll back its nuclear
program for a finite period in exchange for sanctions relief. A second hurdle challenging world
powers has been Iran's reluctance to cooperate with the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic
Energy Agency, on its investigation into the possible military dimensions (PMD) of its nuclear work. Negotiations first began in 2013 in
no small part to resolve these concerns, and the IAEA's reports provided a basis for sanctions resolutions out of the United Nations Security
Council. The head of that agency, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano, visited Tehran this week for critical talks on the matter, as well as to
negotiate the access it needs to completely verify Iran's compliance to any future deal. His initial statement out of that meeting suggested

But in a
said on Saturday that his agency's full PMD report may be ready by the end of the

substantial gaps remained between his understanding of the IAEA's needs and the understanding of Iran's president, Hassan Rouhani.
first, Amano

year. "With cooperation from Iran, I think we can issue a report by the end of the year on the assessment of the clarification of the issues related
to the possible military dimensions," Amano said. Iran has refused to answer virtually all of the IAEA's questions since 2006, when it suspended
its participation with the organization's protocols. Western powers are convinced that Iran worked on weaponizing nuclear material until at least

2003. Any final, comprehensive nuclear accord will be rolled out in phases. Before the deal goes "live" in its
entirety, a period of implementation will allow participating nations to practically prepare for life under the deal. The US has said it seeks to
resolve the PMD issue during this implementation period, indicating that a nuclear deal may be able to go live by as early as January 2016. Part
of that phasing includes when the US, European Union and Security Council would lift its sanctions. Iran wants a complete and "immediate"
sanctions lift upon "signing," which would, theoretically, occur after the implementation phase is complete, and when the deal goes live. An

agreement on this phasing, as well, was reportedly struck over the weekend. The understanding
was allegedly made in principle, over a single document, by technical experts from all sides. But "there will remain
some open issues that can only be decided by ministers," one senior US administration official said on Saturday, responding to the report.

US-Iran deal almost complete major hurdles have been crossed and its 90%
written
Jo Biddle and Siavosh Ghazi 7/4/2015, Powers cite progress on Iran nuclear deal, end in
sight, http://news.yahoo.com/iaea-chief-says-more-needed-iran-visit-085650593.html
Global powers and Iran hit the final straights of marathon talks Saturday, amid signs some of the
toughest hurdles blocking a deal to curb the Iranian nuclear programme may have been resolved. After a 13-year
standoff which has poisoned Iran's international relations, the UN atomic watchdog voiced hopes of a breakthrough to complete a stalled probe
into whether Tehran sought to develop nuclear arms in the past. And

on complicated moves to ease a web of sanctions,


there were indications that at least at the level of experts some understanding may have been
thrashed out, although discussions continued as a new Tuesday deadline looms. The so-called P5+1 -- Britain, China, France, Germany,
Russia and the United States -- are trying to draw the curtain on almost two years of roller-coaster negotiations, which gathered fresh impetus
after President Hassan Rouhani took power in late 2013. The aim is to finalise a deal which would put a nuclear bomb beyond Iran's reach, in
return for lifting biting international sanctions slapped on the Islamic republic, some of which date back to 1995. IAEA chief Yukiya

Amano told reporters after a whirlwind visit to Tehran that progress had been made as the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) seeks to ensure that any deal is "technically sound." "With the cooperation from Iran, I think we can issue a report by the
end of the year on the ... clarification of the issues related to possible military dimensions," Amano told reporters after his talks in Tehran earlier
this week. Iran has long denied it has sought to develop a nuclear bomb and has so far refused UN inspectors access to sensitive military sites to
verify its claims. The standoff has stalled an IAEA probe into the allegations that before 2003, and possibly since, Iran conducted research work
into developing nuclear weapons. US

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Iran's nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, were
back at the negotiating table early Saturday seeking to finalise the deal. Meanwhile, it also seemed there
had been some agreement at expert level on how to ease a web of UN, EU, and US sanctions. A Western
official told AFP that a deal "was possible" on the US sanctions "but there is no agreement yet on the UN" embargoes. "There are still differences
which are being discussed," an Iranian official insisted. And a senior US administration official said: "Even if and when issues get resolved at an
experts' level, there will remain some open issues that can only be decided by ministers." - Ministers returning - As hopes grew for a deal, French
Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, and Germany's Frank-Walter Steinmeier were expected back in Vienna on Sunday. It was not immediately clear
if EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini would also return. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who was to hold a second
meeting later Saturday with US Secretary of State John Kerry, said the world had "never been closer" to reaching a ground-breaking deal. In a
rare move, he also offered the promise of greater cooperation to tackle other global problems, such as the rise of the Islamic State group, should
the deal be sealed. Iran was ready to strike "a balanced and good deal," Zarif said in an English message posted on YouTube, which could "open
new horizons to address important common challenges". "Our common threat today is the growing menace of violent extremism and outright
barbarism," he said in a clear reference to the Islamic State (IS) jihadist group that has overrun parts of Syria and Iraq. Russian

diplomats have said the complex accord, which will stretch to at least 20 pages with a slew of technical annexes, is
"90%" written.

International deal will be made


Ramin Jahanbegloo 7/2/2015 (The writer is Noor-York Chair in Islamic Studies, York
University, Toronto) The Deal in Iran, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/thedeal-in-iran/99/
The marathon nuclear talks between Iran and the major powers continue, while both sides are trying to keep their
cards close to the chest in order to get to what Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called a just deal. The intensity and
complexity of the negotiations between Zarif, US Secretary of State John Kerry and other foreign ministers have sparked
speculation that the accord on Irans nuclear ambitions will not be signed immediately, but only in a few days time.
Under the new framework drawn up in Lausanne, Iran agrees to substantially scale down its nuclear activities to prevent any attempt to develop
nuclear weapons.

Iran is making concession to move the deal forward


Paul Richter 7/3/2015 Iran tries last-minute bargaining tactic in nuclear talks, LA Times,
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-nuclear-talks-20150703-story.html
Negotiators for Iran and the six world powers the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China
appear close to completing a deal that would lift economic sanctions on Iran if it accepts limits intended
to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear bomb for the next 10 to 15 years. But bargaining has been tough in the past several
days as the two sides have maneuvered for last-minute advantage. The video appeared to be aimed at building more pressure and showing that
if talks break down, the fault lies with the United States and other powers, rather than with Iran. It seemed also to be intended to show Zarif's
audience back home that Irans negotiating team has been holding strong to try to get the best possible deal. As Iranian officials have sometimes
done in the past, Zarif also promised that if a deal was done, Iran could help the other countries with what he said was the greatest threat facing
the Mideast: the Islamic State militant group. Our common threat today is the growing threat of violent extremism and outright barbarity, he
said, referring to hooded men who are ravaging the cradle of civilization. Zarif

suggested that the negotiators were


extremely near to a deal. The group has never been closer to a lasting outcome, he said. A senior
Obama administration official would not comment on the video. The official, who declined to be identified citing State Department rules, told a
group of reporters that negotiators were in the endgame of all this. But he said a number of tough issues remained, some of which he said could
only be resolved at the the level of foreign ministers, including Secretary of State John F. Kerry. Earlier Friday, the United Nations nuclear
watchdog agency said it had made progress this week on a central issue in the talks: its examination of Tehrans alleged past nuclear activity. But
it said it hadnt fully resolved the issue. Yukia Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in a statement after a visit
to Tehran on Thursday that the IAEA and Iran have a better understanding on some ways forward, though more work will be needed. He said
he and Iranian officials had also discussed how the IAEA will monitor Irans nuclear activities under the proposed deal. He didnt comment on
whether the two sides had made progress in trying to sort out how much latitude IAEA inspectors will have in monit oring Irans nuclear activity.
A senior Iranian official put a more positive interpretation on the meeting. Abbas Araqchi,

a deputy prime minister, said the


meeting was positive and successful and asserted that Tehran is ready to settle the
controversial issue of Irans alleged past research into nuclear weapons, the Islamic Republic News Agency
reported. Irans past nuclear activities, and particularly alleged work on military applications, has been a major obstacle
in efforts to settle the 13-year-old conflict between Tehran and world powers over its nuclear program.

UQ Deal pass international A2 IAEA inspections


Deal will happen IAEA will sign off
Karen DeYoung 7/4/2015 (associate editor and senior national security correspondent for the
Washington Post) Key issue in Iran nuclear talks could be resolved within months, Washington
Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/key-issue-in-iran-nuclear-talks-could-be-resolvedwithin-months/2015/07/04/ec489992-ce2c-4940-9767-bb7657b7d0e5_story.html
VIENNA The

head of the international nuclear watchdog group a day after returning from Tehran said
Saturday that a report documenting Irans past nuclear activities could be completed by the end of the
year. The report is a key part of the agreement currently being negotiated here between Iran and the United States
and other world powers. While some critics of the potential accord have said Iran must specify its possible military dimensions as part of a final
deal, the

Obama administration has indicated it would be satisfied with whatever arrangement is


reached between Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Once an agreement on the joint
comprehensive plan of action is reached, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said, the IAEA is ready to implement the nuclear-related
elements when requested. The statement by Amano, who met Thursday with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, came amid reports that expert
teams of negotiators have agreed on key parts of the accord, including sanctions relief for Iran. A senior administration official emphasized that
no element of the agreement will be complete until it has been approved by foreign ministers of all negotiating partners. While Secretary of State
John F. Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, were meeting in Vienna on Saturday, other ministers are expected to return
Sunday in hopes of meeting a Tuesday deadline. The United States leads a six-member negotiating group that includes Britain, France, Russia,
China and Germany. Each

element of a potential agreement is being first hammered out by teams of


experts before discussions on a political level. Even if and when issues get resolved at an experts
level, there will remain some open issues that can only be decided by ministers, the official said. Some key decisions will also have
to be sent back to capitals for final approval, another U.S. official said. We are trying to narrow the
number of issues that have to be dealt with by ministers as far as we possibly can, the second official
said. There are literally hundreds of small decisions that have to be made in the context of negotiating agreement like this, some of which have
already been approved at the highest levels. U.S. and other officials discussed the closed-door negotiations on condition of anonymity. Kerry
spent most of Saturday outside the negotiating room in talks with members of the U.S. team, outside the negotiating rooms, officials said. Kerry
and Zarif had an "impromptu discussion" Saturday afternoon at the Coburg Palace Hotel where the talks are going on, and scheduled an
additional, early evening session with Zarif. Separately, U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz held more than three hours of talks with Ali-Akbar
Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. They were joined by U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, and Iranian
Foreign Ministry deputies Abbass Araqchi and Majid Takht-Ravanchi, along with European Union deputy foreign policy adviser Helga Schmid.
The current negotiations here have been underway for three months, after both sides had agreed to a political framework that outlined major areas
of accord. Kerry and Zarif returned here a week ago for what officials have characterized as the endgame of the talks. An initial deadline for
completion of June 30 was extended to July 7, but negotiators hope that if agreement is to be reached it will come by Monday. Both President
Obama and Kerry have said repeatedly that the United States is prepared to walk away if a good deal cannot be achieved. Under

compromise legislation agreed with Congress, Obama has until July 10 to transmit to lawmakers
the text of an agreement and all annexes, along with written assurance by Kerry that Iran has verifiably stopped all work
toward developing a nuclear weapon. The legislation allows Congress 30 days to review the documents
and vote a resolution of disapproval if it so chooses before any sanctions are lifted. If the
documents arrive after July 10, that period increases to 60 days. Purported leaks out of the highly-secret
negotiations, and the responses they have drawn from critics in both the United States and Iran, have repeatedly plagued the talks. Among other
things, critics have focused on Irans insistence that sanctions be lifted with the completion of the agreement. U.S. officials have suggested that
question may be addressed by delaying the actual implementation date of provisions of the accord until verification of Iranian compliance on the
nuclear side. Verification issues have been complicated by public statements in which Iran has repeatedly said inspectors will not be allowed to
visit Iranian military facilities or to interview nuclear scientists. IAEA head

Amano said that progress ... on the way


forward was made in his meeting with Rouhani. Inspection of military facilities is considered key to determining not
only whether Iran is trying to cheat on a deal, but also the extent of its previous work on a nuclear weapon. Iran denies its nuclear program has
been for any purpose other than energy production.

Iran willing to make concession US review means Obama PC is critical


Margaret Brennan 7/3/2015 Iran hints at way around nuke talks roadblock,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-nuclear-talks-military-sites-access-enrichment-vienna/
VIENNA -- Iran is prepared to allow weapons inspectors some managed access to its military

sites, a senior official from Tehran said Thursday, but will not allow "anytime, anywhere"
inspections of its military installations. Determining the scope of access that IAEA weapons
inspectors will get has been the main sticking point holding up a deal in the nuclear negotiations
in Vienna, according to American officials. However, the Iranian official signaled a potential
way around the roadblock. Iran is willing to sign onto international standards -- the so-called
Additional Protocol -- that would allow IAEA inspectors "managed access" to suspect sites, but
still allow Iran to protect its "military secrets." "By accepting the Additional Protocol we do not
mean that all the doors of our military complexes will be opened for the inspectors to see
whatever they want, whoever they want, get whatever information they want," the senior Iranian
official told reporters Thursday . That workaround may allow enough political cover to convince
hardliners within the Iranian military to allow diplomats to strike an accord here in Vienna.
Senior Obama Administration officials have indicated that they recognize any demand to inspect
any and all Iranian military installations would be unrealistic. "The entry point isn't 'we must be
able to get into every military site,' because the United States of America wouldn't allow
anybody to get into every military site," a senior Obama Administration official told reporters.
"We have worked out a process that will insure that the IAEA has the access it needs." American
negotiators are under a time crunch, but Iran is willing to keep bargaining. The senior
Iranian official said his team was "not pressed by time" and "it is not the end of the world" if they
miss the July 9 deadline set by the U.S. Congress. But Obama Administration officials aim to
wrap up this agreement in a matter of days. "We do not see a new deadline," the senior Iranian
official said. "From our side, I think that July 7th, 8th, 9th does not have much of a difference."
U.S. lawmakers plan to take 60 rather than 30 days to review any potential deal if Secretary of
State John Kerry is unable to deliver them a copy of a final agreement by July 9. An extended
review period would heighten the political risks involved in building support for a deal the
Administration hopes to be the crowning achievement of President Obama's foreign policy
legacy.

Compromises emerging on IAEA inspections


Reuters 7/4/2015 Despite progress in Iran nuclear talks, dispute over U.N. sanctions persists,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/04/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PD1DP20150704
Iran and world powers made progress on future sanctions relief for Iran in marathon nuclear talks on Saturday, but
remained divided on issues such as lifting United Nations sanctions and the development of advanced centrifuges. Diplomats close to
the negotiations said they had tentative agreement on a mechanism for suspending U.S. and European Union sanctions
on Iran. But the six powers had yet to agree on a United Nations Security Council resolution that would lift U.N. sanctions and establish a means
of re-imposing them in case of Iranian non-compliance with a future agreement. "We still haven't sorted a Security Council resolution," a
diplomat close to the talks told Reuters. "We don't have Iran on board yet." Senior Iranian and Western diplomats echoed the remarks. Some of
the toughest disputes, including the question of easing U.N. sanctions, were likely to be left for foreign ministers when they arrived in the
Austrian capital on Sunday, officials said. "Even if and when issues get resolved at an experts level, there will remain some open issues that can
only be decided by ministers," a senior U.S. official told reporters. Iran is in talks with the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and
Russia on an agreement to curtail its nuclear program for at least a decade in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. The negotiators missed
a June 30 deadline for a final agreement, but have given themselves until July 7. Foreign ministers not in Vienna are expected to rejoin their
counterparts in a final push for a deal beginning on Sunday. Iran issued a warning about consequences of a collapse in the talks. "The other side
has tried all kinds of pressure against Iran and if it intends to test these pressures again, as (President Hassan) Rouhani has said, Iran's response
would be actions harder than what the other side imagines," said Iran's nuclear spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi, quoted by Iranian news
agencies. All sides say a deal is within reach. But there are other sticking points in addition to sanctions and future
monitoring mechanisms. One is a stalled U.N. investigation into the possible military dimensions of past Iranian nuclear research suspected of
being linked to weapons development. Another is Iran's demand to continue research and development work on advanced centrifuges, machines
that purify uranium for use as fuel in power plants or weapons. SIGNS OF PROGRESS U.N.

International Atomic Energy


Agency director-general Yukiya Amano on Saturday said he could issue a report on its investigation into past Iranian research
suspected of being linked to nuclear weapons development by the end of the year if Tehran cooperated. "With cooperation from Iran, I think we
can issue a report by the end of the year on the assessment of the clarification of the issues related to the possible military dimensions," he said

ahead of meetings with some members of the six-power group. Answering the IAEA's so-far unresolved questions about the "possible military
dimensions" (PMD) of past Iranian nuclear research will be a condition for easing some sanctions on Iran if Tehran and the six powers succeed in
agreeing on a nuclear accord in Vienna, diplomats close to the talks say. Amano was in Tehran on Thursday for meetings with Rouhani and other
top Iranian officials to discuss the stalled IAEA investigation into Tehran's past nuclear work. He said that during

his trip progress

had been made in moving his investigation forward but more work would be needed, echoing a statement the IAEA
issued on Friday. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi
have remained in Vienna. Senior officials from Iran and the six powers have continued meeting to try to finalize an agreement. Kerry and Zarif
met twice on Saturday, U.S. officials said. Western

and Iranian officials said there were signs of a compromise


emerging on one of the major sticking points: access to Iranian sites to monitor compliance
with a future agreement. Another potential emerging compromise relates to Iran's stockpile of lowenriched uranium. Western and Iranian diplomats said Tehran was considering shipping most of the stockpile out of the country,
something Tehran had previously ruled out.

UQ Deal pass international sanctions


Deal is close- agreement on sanctions relief has been reached
George Jahn and Bradley Klapper 7/4/2015, World powers, Iran reach tentative deal on
sanctions relief, The Times of Israel, http://www.timesofisrael.com/tentative-agreement-on-iransanctions-relief/
World powers and Iran have reached tentative agreement on sanctions relief for the Islamic
Republic, among the most contentious issues in a long-term nuclear agreement that negotiators
hope to clinch over the next several days, diplomats told The Associated Press on Saturday. The annex, one of five meant to
accompany the agreement, outlines which US and international sanctions will be lifted and how quickly. Diplomats said senior officials of the
seven-nation talks, which include US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, still had to sign off on
the package. Still, the

word of significant progress indicated the sides were moving closer to a


comprehensive accord that would set a decade of restrictions on Tehrans nuclear program in
exchange for tens of billions of dollars in economic benefits for the Iranians. Officials had
described sanctions relief as one of the thorniest disagreements between Iran and the United
States, which has led the international pressure campaign against Irans economy. The US and much of the world fears Irans enrichment of
uranium and other activity could be designed to make nuclear weapons; Iran says its program is meant only to generate power and for other
peaceful purposes.The annex, one of five meant to accompany the agreement, outlines which US and international sanctions will be lifted and
how quickly. Diplomats said senior officials of the seven-nation talks, which include US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign
Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, still had to sign off on the package.

UQ Top priority
Top priority for Obama
Stephen Collinson 6/27/2015 Best week in Washington: Obama's legacy,
http://www.wisn.com/politics/best-week-in-washington-obamas-legacy/33780710
After the Supreme Court, for a second time, refused to gut the Affordable Care Act and a deal with
Republicans revived his trade agenda, Obama is two-thirds of the way to three big wins that will help
define his place in history. Next up is the prospect of a nuclear deal with Iran, as U.S. negotiators head to Europe to try to
clinch a final agreement that would represent at striking, if partial, break with more than 30 years of visceral hostility between Washington and
Tehran. For sure, one

good week does not change the prevailing dynamic of bitterness and polarization
in Washington. Each of the three big legacy items is deeply contentious, has ripped new political divides and could be overturned by a
future GOP president.

UQ Yes PC
Obama has built up political capital due to recent policy and court wins
Ed Pilkington June 29, 2015, The Guardian, Obama triumphant? President turns gaze to
progress on guns, race and votes, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/29/obamatriumphant-president-guns-race-votes
With the winds of change behind him, a newly confident president has been visible. In contrast to the muted, cautious
politician who hunkered down in the Oval Office through much of the past six years, to the dismay of many of his liberal supporters, a fullthroated progressive firebrand has reemerged, reminiscent of the Barack Obama of 2008 who wowed the country during his first presidential
campaign. That

new-found fire in the belly was evident when the White House was bathed in
rainbow colors on the night of the supreme court ruling on gay marriage a symbolic gesture approved by
Obama less than four years after he publicly opposed same-sex marriages. Last Friday, it was again on display at the funeral
of Reverend Clementa Pinckney, one of nine victims of the Charleston church shooting. Delivering the eulogy, Obama both
metaphorically and literally found his voice he memorably sang Amazing Grace to a dazzled crowd of largely black mourners. But after an
extraordinary week, one so rarely enjoyed by presidents of either political colour, what will Obama do with
this unexpected boost to his political capital? As Professor Bruce Buchanan, a specialist in
presidential politics at the University of Texas at Austin, put it: I think the president has won back some
credibility from the vindication of his policy stances and moral authority from his powerful statement following the
Charleston killings. It remains to be seen if he can use either as leverage to press his remaining policy
ambitions.

LINKS

Generic
Plan encounters overwhelming opposition due to ideology, security fears, and vested
interests no risk of a link turn
Forno 15 (Dr. Richard, Ph.D. from Curtin University of Technology in 2010, directs the
University of Maryland Baltimore County's Graduate Cybersecurity Program, is the Assistant
Director of UMBC's Center for Cybersecurity, and a lecturer in the UMBC Department of
Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Regarding the Politics of Surveillance Reform,
May 24, https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2015/05/regarding-politics-surveillance-reform)
What does this all mean for the politics of meaningful surveillance reform? Over the years, much has been written or said
about the legal, technical, and practical merits of surveillance and privacy. Civil liberties advocates and other reform-minded individuals continue
to strive for meaningful change (or resistance) where possible on areas they see as an excessive application of governmental power in society.
And, admittedly, there probably are other surveillance techniques in-place that have not yet been disclosed but likely would be deemed
controversial by American citizens. However, regardless of what is or is not known about surveillance programs in the United States, I (cynically)
believe much of the resistance

of political and law enforcement officials to any slight, let alone meaningful,
reform of domestic surveillance capabilities is the result of three overarching interests: 1) Political job security.
No elected official of any party wants to say they didn't "do all they could" on matters of national
security -- and especially after an incident or when the potential for an incident remains in the public
mind. To that end, officials will err on the side of reactionary caution and embrace practically
anything that can be seen (or marketed to citizens) as helping keep them safe from any number of real or
perceived threats, regardless of its effectiveness or (in the case of Section 215) its legality. Fear of being held
accountable by a misinformed electorate if the worst should come to pass --- what else can explain the dogmatic views of
Senate leaders in their ongoing attempts to reauthorize Section 215? The only way to meaningfully reform national policy (and especially defense

legislators -- but no
trapped not only by special interests funding
their next campaign, but by an unwillingness to "stick their neck out" and take hard decisions that they might have
to defend later on. 2) A national aversion to risk. Closely tied to #1, there remains a deep-seated aversion to anything
bad happening in the country, ever. Unfortunately, the United States tends to address risk in ways other than through rational,
procurement or security policies like USA 'PATRIOT') is to reform the electoral process by enacting term limits for
politician is going to change the system that puts them in office. Thus, they are

objective analysis. For example, much of the risk-reward analysis used in national security circles since 9/11 tends to be skewed toward what Ron
Suskind called the "One Percent Doctrine" -- namely, that if there's a 1% chance of something bad happening, we must treat it as thought it was a
100% certainty. Accordingly, since 9/11, American society has become conditioned to be completely fearful of any number of potential terrorist
risks despite other persistent and perennial sources of trauma and death in the country such as from guns, heart disease, cancer, or drunk driving.
Therefore, politcians

are eager to demonstrate their 'support' for protecting the country and "doing all
they can" toward that noble goal. Consequently, this leads to philosophical and political debates over "just because we CAN do
something doesn't mean we SHOULD necessarily do it" regarding emerging security capabilities and policies, with the former typically winning
out in the near-term. One current example is the federal government's renewed desire to obtain an operationally if not also mathematically
impossible "good guys only" backdoor to strong encryption technologies in order to facilitate easy electronic communications surveillance by the
government to 'protect' its citizens. 3) Boys/Girls With Toys. Since 9/11, federal,

state, and local law enforcement have


been the beneficiaries of significant new assets, ranging from tactical mine-resistant armored vehicles and helicopters to
grenade launchers, body armor, IMSI catchers ('Stingrays') and a network of poorly-monitored 'intelligence fusion centers'
that produce dubious intelligence 'analysis'. Such assets, once gained, are not easily relinquished -- local police have loudly
condemned the president's recently announced plans to de-militarize America's local law enforcement departments by removing much of the
overt military hardware they've accumulated over the years. Federal law enforcement is no different when it comes to giving up or no longer
having broad powers and capabilities such as those under Section 215 -- even though it's been repeatedly shown not to have been helpful in
investigations, FBI Director Comey continues lobbying for its renewal. This is not surprising, since the USA 'PATRIOT' Act, intended as a
response to 9/11 terrorism, has been used in other non-terrorism related investigations since its enactment. By extension, an

unwillingness to relinquish authorities, capabilities, or powers may well explain why fifteen years after the
9/11 attacks, America is still operating under a Presidential Declaration of National Emergency. More locally, the number of towns with license
plate reader cameras on every street corner continues to grow -- is there really such an epidemic of stolen cars that warrants (ha!) this level of
regional surveillance, or is it just a convenient narrative to tell communities as more units are deployed? Again, once a law enforcement
capability or government authority is received, it rarely gets relinquished easily.

Obama Fights Plan


Obama would use PC to fight against the plan- favors expansion of surveillance
Farnia in 2011 (Nina Farnia, Shoring Up the National Security state, JSTOR.org, Middle
East Research and Information Project (MERIP) summer 2011, 4 pgs. 7/3/15,
http://jstor.org/stable/41407966
Many expected the Obama administration to slow or altogether stop the growth of the national security
state that its two predecessor administrations brought into being, but just the opposite has
occurred. Prisoners are still held without charge at Guantanamo Bay; the Patriot Act is still the
law; the administration has retained the use of rendition and protected state secrets with punitive
vigor. President Barack Obama's Justice Department has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all
others combined. In key respects, indeed, the Obama administration has expanded and
institutionalized the national security state. On the one hand, the administration is reinvigorating ageold policies such as the Espionage Act of 1917, which it is using to try whistleblowers. One the other
hand, it has attempted to bring previously unprotected law enforcement and detention practices, such as military tribunals and the suspension of
habeas corpus, under the umbrella of legality. Unlike the Bush administration, which often acted outside the law, the

Obama

administration is intent on protecting itself by using the law. In fact, an article by civil rights attorney Bill Quigley
reports that over 2,600 activists have been arrested since Obama was elected. While this figure is surely below
the actual number, it reveals a steady increase over previous years. And the Obama administration has yet to abandon the
Bush administrations racial and religious profiling. To the contrary, the Obama administration
has also begun a widespread effort to prosecute individuals based on political and ideological
profiling. The Bush administration often targeted Muslim charities and mosques, accusing them of material support for terrorism. But during
Bush's eight years in office, that charge was rarely used against non-Muslims. Now the Obama administration is using the same allegation to go
after primarily non-Muslim activists engaged in international solidarity with Palestine. Two ongoing cases illustrate the extent of profiling in
government investigations and the continuity between administrations in shoring up the national security state.

President Obama defends NSA and other programs- The president supports every
part of the NSA
Reilly in 2013 (Mollie Reilly, Political Editor, 6/18/13,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/obama-nsa-surveillance_n_3455771.html, 7/3/15)
President Barack Obama further defended the National Security Agency's collection of phone and
other electronic records to PBS' Charlie Rose, calling the program "transparent." In a pretaped interview set to air Monday evening,
Obama gave a forceful defense of the program, saying that the NSA had not unlawfully targeted
Americans. "What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot target your emails and have not,"
Obama said, according to a transcript provided by PBS. Rose pressed Obama on the point, according to the transcript: Rose: So I hear you saying, I have no problem with what NSA has been

what happens is that the FBI if, in fact, it now wants to get content;
if, in fact, it wants to start tapping that phone its got to go to the FISA court with probable cause
and ask for a warrant. Rose: But has FISA court turned down any request? Obama: The because the first of all, Charlie, the number of requests are surprisingly
doing. Obama: Well, let me let me finish, because I dont. So,

small number one. Number two, folks dont go with a query unless theyve got a pretty good suspicion. Rose: Should this be transparent in some way? Obama: It is transparent. Thats why we

Obama said the program had "disrupted" terrorist plots in the United
States as well as overseas. The president pointed specifically to the prosecution of Najibullah
Zazi, who was arrested in 2009 as part of a plan to bomb the New York City subway system. "Now,
we might have caught him some other way. We might have disrupted it because a New York cop
saw he was suspicious," Obama said. "Maybe he turned out to be incompetent and the bomb didnt go
off. But at the margins we are increasing our chances of preventing a catastrophe like that
through these programs." While Zazi's name has come up frequently in defense of the NSA, the Associated
Press and others have thrown cold water on the talking point, stating that the email the NSA says led
to the plot's disruption could have been intercepted without the PRISM program. Obama struck a similar tone
during a June 7 speech in San Jose, Calif., saying that Congress has been briefed on the programs' details. " The programs are secret in the sense that
they are classified. They are not secret, in that every member of Congress has been briefed," he said. "These are programs that
set up the FISA court. Later in the interview,

have been authored by large bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006." White House chief of staff Denis McDonough
also stood by the program on Sunday during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," insisting that Obama "does not" have privacy concerns related to the NSA's phone records collection.

The president is not saying, 'Trust me,'" he said. "The president is saying, 'I want every member
of Congress, on whose authority we are running this program, to be briefed on it, to come to the
administration with questions and to also be accountable for it.'"
"

Controversy Drains PC
Controversial policies drain political capital
Burke, University of Vermont political science professor, 9
(John P., Presidential Studies Quarterly 39.3 (Sept 2009), The Contemporary Presidency: The
Obama Presidential Transition: An Early Assessment, p574 (31). Academic One; accessed 7-1510)
President Obama signaled his intention to make a clean break from the unpopular Bush presidency
with his executive orders and early policy and budget proposals. At the same time, he also sought to tamp down public expectations for quick results on the economy.
Early--and ambitious--actions were taken, but as he cautioned in his inaugural address, "the challenges we face are real" and they "will not be met easily or in a short

His initial political capital seemed high. But was the right course of action chosen? The
decision was made to embrace a broad range of policy reforms, not just to focus on the economy.
Moreover, it was a controversial agenda. His early efforts to gain bipartisan support in Congress-much like those of his predecessors--seem largely for naught and forced the administration to
rely on narrow partisan majorities. The question that remains is whether his political capital, both
in Congress and with the public, will bring him legislative--and ultimately policy--success. Good
transition planning is propitious, but it offers no guarantees. Still, without it, political and policy disaster likely awaits. So far, President Obama
seems to reside largely on the positive side of the equation. But what the future might portend
remains another matter.
span of time."

IMPACT

2nc Overview
Disad outweighs Congressional repudiation of the deal risk escalation to military
conflict - widespread conflict in the Middle East draws-in Russia and China
causing great power nuclear war thats Shaer and Trabanco
Speed Failure means US-Iran conflict
Ryan Costello 11/5/2014 (joined NIAC in April 2013 as a Policy Fellow) Can Obama and the
Republican Congress Seal an Iran Nuclear Deal?, http://www.niacouncil.org/can-obamarepublican-congress-seal-iran-nuclear-deal/
With the Republicans gaining control of both houses of the U.S. Congress, polarization and partisan gridlock
are likely to continue to grip Washington. The grim political outlook has already cast a shadow
over nuclear negotiations with Iran, where a diplomatic breakthrough remains within reach
as the parties near a November 24 deadline for a comprehensive deal. While the parties have a number of
difficult choices left to make, the risks of failing to reach an agreement by the November deadline (or shortly thereafter) are significantly higher
than they were in July. Given the landscape of domestic politics in both the U.S. and Iran, there

may not be a better chance to


ink a durable deal than over the next few weeks. Since the U.S. and UN powers secured an interim agreement to freeze
Irans nuclear program last November, President Obama has worked closely with Congressional allies to
prevent any new sanctions from passing that would violate that agreement. Republicans in the minority clamored to vote on new
Iran sanctions, but their motivations could have been due to politics rather than policy. An affirmative vote on Iran sanctions
would have killed the agreement, likely fracturing international unity on the sanctions and potentially pushing the U.S.
and Iran toward military confrontation. Fortunately, Congress held off, enabling us to test Irans intentions. As
a result, the interim agreement has been an unmitigated success. Iran has capped enrichment at the 5% level, eliminated its stockpile of uranium
enriched to the 20% level, and frozen the number of centrifuges it is operating. Further, Iran has enabled daily access to its enrichment facilities,
compared with bimonthly inspections before the deal. However,

the future Republican Senate could tip the scales


in favor of Congress passing new Iran sanctions. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) sought to avoid such a vote to
allow negotiations to proceed. However, with Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as Majority Leader, a vote on new Iran
sanctions becomes far more likely regardless of the outcome of talks. McConnell has pursued a policy of obstruction over the
past six years, seeking to deny the President any significant policy achievements and then blaming the President for Washingtons dysfunction.
Despite the obvious benefits of a nuclear deal and the dire consequences of failure, McConnell could continue his policy of denying the President
a share of any policy wins. Further, based on statements when the Republicans were in the minority, McConnell would be likely to have the nearfull backing of his caucus. All but three Republican Senators signed onto a February letter railing against Reid for blocking a vote on new Iran
sanctions, and McConnell himself affirmed that he would push for a vote if a final nuclear agreement doesnt meet his (near impossible)
expectations. As a result, the President might be forced to veto new sanctions and ensure that one-third of the House or Senate block an override
of the veto a highly tenuous but potentially defensible position. However, there is a key factor working in favor of Republicans holding their
fire that didnt exist before the elections. Now that the Republicans are in control of Congress, their choices are no longer cost free. If they ratchet
up sanctions, they will own the consequences: the unraveling of the greatest opportunity to resolve the nuclear impasse and prevent war in
decades, and one we may not see again. This could greatly diminish the Republicans chances in 2016 presidential elections by further tying them
to the war-happy neoconservative camp. Regardless, the

longer the President waits to strike an accord, the weaker


his hand will be. Given that the Presidents strategy will be to utilize executive authority written into Congressional sanctions legislation
to temporarily relieve sanctions in the initial phases of the agreement and delay a Congressional vote to lift sanctions until the later stages of a
deal the negotiating parties would be wise to frontload as much of the agreement as possible. If

both sides show that they are


upholding their side of the bargain over time, the harder it will be for Congress or the Presidents
successor to dismantle what will be a very good deal. President Rouhani, as well, will face
diminishing political prospects without an agreement in the near-term. Rouhani has invested the vast majority
of his political capital in securing a nuclear deal, which holds the best likelihood of long-term economic relief for Irans sanctions-plagued
economy. Rather than open up new domestic political fronts that could jeopardize the Supreme Leaders support for an agreement, Rouhani has
ceded many fights to the hardliners. Thus, while Rouhani has maintained the upper hand on the nuclear issue, hardliners have been able to keep
the domestic status quo more or less intact. The amplification of executions and other human rights abuses by the hardline Judiciary appear aimed
at embarrassing Rouhani as he reaches out to the outside world and weakening popular support for his administration. The longer Rouhani goes
without striking a deal, the more the hardliners will escalate their attacks and the longer it will take him to turn to the domestic agenda that helped
get him elected. But if

Rouhani succeeds and obtains a nuclear deal, he will strengthen his political

clout and diminish the threat of war that has underpinned the securitization of the domestic
sphere in Iran. Fortunately, the high stakes should enable the parties to strike and sell an
agreement. If the talks collapse, escalation would be the name of the game, as Acting Deputy
Secretary of State Wendy Sherman stated recently. Under such a scenario, the U.S. would certainly amplify punishing
sanctions on Iran, Irans nuclear program would expand in response, and there would be a renewed
threat of a costly, counterproductive military conflict when the region is already aflame. However, staving off such dire outcomes and
securing the mutual benefits of a deal will not get easier. Both Presidents Obama and Rouhani need to seize the moment
before their domestic opponents gain the upper hand.

Scope Escalation fast and guaranteed Russia and Chineses interest


Michel Chossudovsky (Professor of Economics University of Ottawa author of several books
about International Stability) May 2005, Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran,
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. Iran is the next military target. The
planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World
domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War. Military

action against Iran would directly involve


Israel's participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to
mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks. Israel is a nuclear
power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The

use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be

excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker
buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is
underground") In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat. The planned attack on Iran must be understood in
relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. The

conflict could easily


spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and
Georgia, where US troops are stationed. An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also
put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in
Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.) In other words, the shaky

geopolitics of the

Central Asia- Middle

East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of
the specter of a broader conflict. Moreover, US
military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the
Caspian sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is
Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises

likely to produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.

Magnitude Nuclear war


John Scales Avery, Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, COUNTERCURRENTS,
11513, http://www.countercurrents.org/avery061113.htm
Despite the willingness of Iran's new President, Hassan Rouhani to make all reasonable concessions to US demands, Israeli pressure groups in
Washington continue to demand an attack on Iran. But such an attack might escalate into a global nuclear war, with
catastrophic consequences. As we approach the 100th anniversary World War I, we should remember that this colossal disaster escalated

minor conflict. There is a danger that an attack on Iran would escalate into a
large-scale war in the Middle East, entirely destabilizing a region that is already deep in problems. The unstable government
of Pakistan might be overthrown, and the revolutionary Pakistani government might enter the war on the side
of Iran, thus introducing nuclear weapons into the conflict. Russia and China, firm allies of Iran, might also be
drawn into a general war in the Middle East. Since much of the world's oil comes from the region, such a war would certainly
cause the price of oil to reach unheard-of heights, with catastrophic effects on the global economy.
uncontrollably from what was intended to be a

In the dangerous situation that could potentially result from an attack on Iran, there is a risk that nuclear weapons would be used, either

besides making large areas of the world


uninhabitable through long-lasting radioactive contamination, a nuclear war would damage global agriculture to such a
extent that a global famine of previously unknown proportions would result. Thus, nuclear war is the ultimate ecological
intentionally, or by accident or miscalculation. Recent research has shown that

catastrophe. It could destroy human civilization and much of the biosphere. To risk such a war would be an unforgivable offense
against the lives and future of all the peoples of the world, US citizens included.

2nc Overview Escalates


Escalates, causes extinction
John Scales Avery, Professor, Quantum Chemistry and Thermodynamics, University of
Copenhagen, Iran: Automatic Escalation to World War III? Transcend Media Service, 101
12, http://www.transcend.org/tms/2012/10/iran-automatic-escalation-to-world-war-iii/
A few days ago Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh , who is in charge of the Revolutionary
Guards missile systems told Irans Arabic-language television network that should Israel and Iran
engage militarily, nothing is predictable and it will turn into World War III. He added that
Iran would deem any Israeli strike to be conducted with US authorisation, so whether the
Zionist regime attacks with or without US knowledge, then we will definitely attack US bases in
Bahrain, Qatar and Afghanistan. The first point to notice is that an attack on Iran by Israel
would be both criminal and insane. It would be criminal because it would be a violation of the
United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. It would be insane because it would
initiate a conflict that might escalate in an unpredictable way. Such a conflict might easily be the
start of a Third World War. But what General Hajizadeh proposes in his statement is perhaps
even more criminal and even more insane. Let us suppose that Netanyahus and his government
carry through their irresponsible plan of attacking Iran . If Iran then responds by attacking US
bases in Bahrain, Qatar and Afghanistan, then the escalation of the conflict would be absolutely
automatic. US leaders would then have no choice. They would be forced to respond by attacking
Iran, despite the danger that Russia, China and Pakistan would be drawn into the conflict on the
side of Iran. One is reminded of the start of World War I, when a small conflict started by Austria
to punish the Serbian Panslavic Movement escalated into a global disaster which still casts a
shadow over the world almost a century later. The difference between 1914 and 2012 is that
today we possess all-destroying thermonuclear weapons.A new world war could lead to the
destruction of human civilization and much of the biosphere.

Iran war escalates


Jeffrey White, defense fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, What Would War
with Iran Look Like, AMERICAN INTEREST, July/August 2011, http://www.the-americaninterest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=982
A U.S.-Iranian war would probably not be fought by theUnited States and Iran alone. Each
would have partners or allies, both willing and not-so-willing. Pre-conflict commitments,
longstanding relationships, the course of operations and other factors would place the United
States and Iran at of more or less structured coalitions of the marginally willing. A Western
coalition could consist of the United States and most of its traditional allies (but very likely not
Turkey, based on the evolution of Turkish politics) in addition to some Persian Gulf states,
Jordan and perhaps Egypt, depending on where its revolution takes it. Much would depend on
whether U.S. leaders could persuade others to go along, which would mean convincing them that
U.S. forces could shield them from Iranian and Iranian-proxy retaliation, or at least substantially
weaken its effects. Coalition warfare would present a number of challenges to the U.S.
government. Overall, it would lend legitimacy to the action, but it would also constrict U.S.
freedom of action, perhaps by limiting the scope and intensity of military operations. There
would thus be tension between the desire for a small coalition of the capable for operational and

security purposes and a broader coalition that would include marginally useful allies to maximize
legitimacy. The U.S. administration would probably not welcome Israeli participation. But if
Israel were directly attacked by Iran or its allies, Washington would find it difficult to keep Israel
outas it did during the 1991 Gulf War. That would complicate the U.S. ability to manage its
coalition, although it would not necessarily break it apart. Iranian diplomacy and information
operations would seek to exploit Israeli participation to the fullest. Iran would have its own
coalition. Hizballah in particular could act at Irans behest both by attacking Israel directly and
by using its asymmetric and irregular warfare capabilities to expand the conflict and complicate
the maintenance of the U.S. coalition. The escalation of the Hizballah-Israel conflict could draw
in Syria and Hamas; Hamas in particular could feel compelled to respond to an Iranian request
for assistance. Some or all of these satellite actors might choose to leave Iran to its fate,
especially if initial U.S. strikes seemed devastating to the point of decisive. But their
involvement would spread the conflictto the entire eastern Mediterranean and perhaps beyond,
complicating both U.S. military operations and coalition diplomacy.

Escalates, extinction
Mahdi Nazemroaya, Research Associate, Centre for Research on Globalization, The Next
World War: The Great Game and The Threat of Nuclear War, Global Research, 11011,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-next-world-war-the-great-game-and-the-threat-of-nuclearwar/22169?print=1
Any attack on Iran will be a joint operation between Israel, the U.S., and NATO. Such an attack
will escalate into a major war. The U.S. could attack Iran, but can not win a conventional war.
General Yuri Baluyevsky, the former chief of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff and
Russian deputy defence minister, even publicly came forward in 2007 to warn that an attack on
Iran would be a global disaster and unwinnable for the Pentagon. [97] Such a war against Iran
and its allies in the Middle East would lead to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran as the only
means to defeat it. Even Saddam Hussein, who during his day once commanded the most
powerful Arab state and military force, was aware of this. In July 25, 1990, in a meeting with
April C. Glaspie, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein stated: But you know you
[meaning the U.S.] are not the ones who protected your friends during the war with Iran. I assure
you, had the Iranians overrun the region, the American troops would not have stopped them,
except by the use of nuclear weapons. [98] The diabolically unthinkable is no longer a taboo:
the use of nuclear weapons once again against another country by the U.S. military. This will be
a violation of the NPT and international law. Any nuclear attack on Iran will have major, longterm environmental impacts. A nuclear attack on Iran will also contaminate far-reaching areas
that will go far beyond Iran to places such as Europe, Turkey, the Arabian Peninsula, Central
Asia, Pakistan, and India. Within the NATO alliance and amongst U.S. allies a consensus has
been underway to legitimize and normalize the idea of using nuclear weapons. This consenus
aims at paving the way for a nuclear strike against Iran and/or other countries in the future.This
groundwork also includes the normalization of Israeli nukes. Towards the end of 2006, Robert
Gates stated that Israel has nuclear weapons, which was soon followed by a conveniently-timed
slip of the tongue by Ehud Olmert stating that Tel Aviv possessed nuclear weapons. [99] Within
this framework, Fumio Kyuma, a former Japanese defence minister, during a speech at Reitaku
University in 2007 that followed the statements of Gates and Olmert, tried to publicly legitimize
the dropping of atom bombs by the U.S. on Japanese civilians. [100] Because of the massive

public outrage in Japanese society, Kyuma was forced to resign his post as defence minister.
[101] The Uncertain Road Ahead: Armageddon at Our Doorstep? The March into the Unknown
Horizon... According to theChristian Science Monitor, Beijing is a barometre on whether Iran
will be attacked and it seems unlikely by the acceleration in trade between China and Iran. [102]
Still a major war in the Middle East and an even more dangerous global war with the use of
nuclear weapons should not be ruled out. The globe is facing a state of worldwide military
escalation. What is looming in front of humanity is the possibility of an all-out nuclear war and
the extinction of most life on this planet as we know it.

2nc Overview turns case policy


Iran-US relations are a conflict dampener- prevent global wars
Adib-Moghaddam 14 London Middle East Institute Centre for Iranian Studies chair
[Arshin, MPhil and PhD, Reader in Comparative Politics and International Relations at SOAS,
University of London, interviewed by Firouzeh Mirrazavi, " Renewed Iranian-American
Relations Stabilize World Politics Interview," Eurasia Review, 2-16-14,
www.eurasiareview.com/16022014-renewed-iranian-american-relations-stabilize-world-politicsinterview/, accessed 2-19-14]
I am in no doubt that renewed Iranian-American relations will have a stabilizing effect on
world politics in general. The two countries have merging interests and ultimately they are
actors that can deliver. One of the reasons why the foreign policy of both countries was not
effective in the different strategic theatres that you have mentioned is exactly because there was
no dialogue to align them where necessary. This region needs peace and stability. The human
suffering of the last decades is unbearable. The threat of al-Qaeda continues to be real and
urgent. Iran and the United States must sit on the same table in order to deliberate about how to
bring about a security architecture that will outlaw, once and for all, the use of force in the
region. It is central that this is not pursued in exclusion of other regional actors. Iran and the
United States will continue to disagree on a range of issues, certainly Palestine, Hezbollah,
Bahrain etc., but I do not see any reason why these differences could not be negotiated within a
diplomatic context. Certainly, they are not more serious than the differences that the United
States has with China.

Iran deal and relaxation of sanctions is key to prevent global proliferation and
instability leading to nuclear conflict.
Philip Stephens, journalist, The Four Big Truths that Are Shaping the Iran Talks,
FINANCIAL TIMES, 111413, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/af170df6-4d1c-11e3-bf3200144feabdc0.html, accessed 9-2-14.
The first of these is that Tehrans acquisition of a bomb would be more than dangerous for the
Middle East and for wider international security. It would most likely set off a nuclear arms race
that would see Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt signing up to the nuclear club. The nuclear nonproliferation treaty would be shattered. A future regional conflict could draw Israel into
launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike. This is not a region obviously susceptible to cold war
disciplines of deterrence. The second ineluctable reality is that Iran has mastered the nuclear
cycle. How far it is from building a bomb remains a subject of debate. Different intelligence
agencies give different answers. These depend in part on what the spooks actually know and in
part on what their political masters want others to hear. The progress of an Iranian warhead
programme is one of the known unknowns that have often wreaked havoc in this part of the
world. Israel points to an imminent threat. European agencies are more relaxed, suggesting
Tehran is still two years or so away from a weapon. Western diplomats broadly agree that
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not taken a definitive decision to step over the line. What Iran has
been seeking is what diplomats call a breakout capability the capacity to dash to a bomb before
the international community could effectively mobilise against it. The third fact and this one is
hard for many to swallow is that neither a negotiated settlement nor the air strikes long
favoured by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israels prime minister, can offer the rest of the world a

watertight insurance policy. It should be possible to construct a deal that acts as a plausible
restraint and extends the timeframe for any breakout but no amount of restrictions or
intrusive monitoring can offer a certain guarantee against Tehrans future intentions. By the same
token, bombing Irans nuclear sites could certainly delay the programme, perhaps for a couple of
years. But, assuming that even the hawkish Mr Netanyahu is not proposing permanent war
against Iran, air strikes would not end it. You cannot bomb knowledge and technical expertise. To
try would be to empower those in Tehran who say the regime will be safe only when, like North
Korea, it has a weapon. So when Barack Obama says the US will never allow Iran to get the
bomb he is indulging in, albeit understandable, wishful thinking. The best the international
community can hope for is that, in return for a relaxation of sanctions, Iran will make a judgment
that it is better off sticking with a threshold capability. To put this another way, if Tehran does
step back from the nuclear brink it will be because of its own calculation of the balance of
advantage. The fourth element in this dynamic is that Iran now has a leadership that, faced with
the severe and growing pain inflicted by sanctions, is prepared to talk. There is nothing to say
that Hassan Rouhani, the president, is any less hard-headed than previous Iranian leaders, but he
does seem ready to weigh the options. Seen from this vantage point and in spite of the
inconclusive outcome Geneva can be counted a modest success. Iran and the US broke the
habit of more than 30 years and sat down to talk to each other. Know your enemy is a first rule of
diplomacy and of intelligence. John Kerry has his detractors but, unlike his predecessor Hillary
Clinton, the US secretary of state understands that serious diplomacy demands a willingness to
take risks. The Geneva talks illuminated the shape of an interim agreement. Iran will not
surrender the right it asserts to uranium enrichment, but will lower the level of enrichment from
20 per cent to 3 or 4 per cent. It will suspend work on its heavy water reactor in Arak a
potential source of plutonium negotiate about the disposal of some of its existing stocks of
enriched uranium, and accept intrusive international inspections. A debate between the six
powers about the strength and credibility of such pledges is inevitable, as is an argument with
Tehran about the speed and scope of a run down of sanctions.

uncontrollable escalation draws-in every superpower, specifically US, Russia, and


China only scenario that rises to the level of extinction
Reuveny, 10 professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana
University (Rafael, Unilateral strike could trigger World War III, global depression Gazette
Xtra, 8/7, - See more at: http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/aug/07/con-unilateral-strike-couldtrigger-world-war-iii-/#sthash.ec4zqu8o.dpuf)
A unilateral Israeli strike on Irans nuclear facilities would likely have dire consequences,
including a regional war, global economic collapse and a major power clash. For an Israeli
campaign to succeed, it must be quick and decisive. This requires an attack that would be so
overwhelming that Iran would not dare to respond in full force. Such an outcome is extremely
unlikely since the locations of some of Irans nuclear facilities are not fully known and known
facilities are buried deep underground. All of these widely spread facilities are shielded by
elaborate air defense systems constructed not only by the Iranians but also the Chinese and,
likely, the Russians as well. By now, Iran has also built redundant command and control systems
and nuclear facilities, developed early warning systems, acquired ballistic and cruise missiles and
upgraded and enlarged its armed forces. Because Iran is well-prepared, a single, conventional
Israeli strikeor even numerous strikescould not destroy all of its capabilities, giving Iran

time to respond. Unlike Iraq, whose nuclear program Israel destroyed in 1981, Iran has a secondstrike capability comprised of a coalition of Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Hezbollah, Hamas, and,
perhaps, Turkish forces. Internal pressure might compel Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian
Authority to join the assault, turning a bad situation into a regional war. During the 1973 ArabIsraeli War, at the apex of its power, Israel was saved from defeat by President Nixons shipment
of weapons and planes. Today, Israels numerical inferiority is greater, and it faces more
determined and better-equipped opponents. After years of futilely fighting Palestinian irregular
armies, Israel has lost some of its perceived superioritybolstering its enemies resolve. Despite
Israels touted defense systems, Iranian coalition missiles, armed forces, and terrorist attacks
would likely wreak havoc on its enemy, leading to a prolonged tit-for-tat. In the absence of
massive U.S. assistance, Israels military resources may quickly dwindle, forcing it to use its
alleged nuclear weapons, as it had reportedly almost done in 1973. An Israeli nuclear attack
would likely destroy most of Irans capabilities, but a crippled Iran and its coalition could still
attack neighboring oil facilities, unleash global terrorism, plant mines in the Persian Gulf and
impair maritime trade in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Middle Eastern oil
shipments would likely slow to a trickle as production declines due to the war and insurance
companies decide to drop their risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and Venezuela would likely
stop selling oil to the United States and Europe. From there, things could deteriorate as they did
in the 1930s. The world economy would head into a tailspin; international acrimony would rise;
and Iraqi and Afghani citizens might fully turn on the United States, immediately requiring the
deployment of more American troops. Russia, China, Venezuela, and maybe Brazil and Turkey
all of which essentially support Irancould be tempted to form an alliance and openly
challenge the U.S. hegemony. Russia and China might rearm their injured Iranian protege
overnight, just as Nixon rearmed Israel, and threaten to intervene, just as the U.S.S.R. threatened
to join Egypt and Syria in 1973. President Obamas response would likely put U.S. forces on
nuclear alert, replaying Nixons nightmarish scenario. Iran may well feel duty-bound to respond
to a unilateral attack by its Israeli archenemy, but it knows that it could not take on the United
States head-to-head. In contrast, if the United States leads the attack, Irans response would
likely be muted. If Iran chooses to absorb an American-led strike, its allies would likely protest
and send weapons but would probably not risk using force. While no one has a crystal ball,
leaders should be risk-averse when choosing war as a foreign policy tool. If attacking Iran is
deemed necessary, Israel must wait for an American green light. A unilateral Israeli strike could
ultimately spark World War III.

(optional) Global war turns hegemony


Reuveny, 10 professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana
University (Rafael, Unilateral strike could trigger World War III, global depression Gazette
Xtra, 8/7, - See more at: http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/aug/07/con-unilateral-strike-couldtrigger-world-war-iii-/#sthash.ec4zqu8o.dpuf)
A unilateral Israeli strike on Irans nuclear facilities would likely have dire consequences,
including a regional war, global economic collapse and a major power clash. For an Israeli campaign to succeed,
it must be quick and decisive. This requires an attack that would be so overwhelming that Iran would not dare to respond in full force. Such an outcome is extremely

the locations of some of Irans nuclear facilities are not fully known and known facilities
are buried deep underground. All of these widely spread facilities are shielded by elaborate air defense systems constructed not only by the
Iranians but also the Chinese and, likely, the Russians as well. By now, Iran has also built redundant command and control
systems and nuclear facilities, developed early warning systems, acquired ballistic and cruise missiles and upgraded and enlarged its armed
unlikely since

Israeli strikeor even numerous strikescould not destroy all of its


capabilities, giving Iran time to respond. Unlike Iraq, whose nuclear program Israel destroyed in 1981, Iran has a second-strike
capability comprised of a coalition of Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Hezbollah, Hamas, and, perhaps, Turkish forces. Internal pressure might compel Jordan, Egypt
forces. Because Iran is well-prepared, a single, conventional

and the Palestinian Authority to join the assault, turning a bad situation into a regional war. During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, at the apex of its power, Israel was
saved from defeat by President Nixons shipment of weapons and planes. Today, Israels numerical inferiority is greater, and it faces more determined and betterequipped opponents. After years of futilely fighting Palestinian irregular armies, Israel has lost some of its perceived superioritybolstering its enemies resolve.
Despite Israels touted defense systems, Iranian coalition missiles, armed forces, and terrorist attacks would likely wreak havoc on its enemy, leading to a prolonged

Israels military resources may quickly dwindle, forcing it to use


nuclear weapons, as it had reportedly almost done in 1973.

tit-for-tat. In the absence of massive U.S. assistance,

its alleged
An Israeli nuclear attack would likely destroy most
of Irans capabilities, but a crippled Iran and its coalition could still attack neighboring oil facilities, unleash global terrorism, plant mines in the Persian Gulf and

oil shipments would

slow to a trickle

impair maritime trade in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Middle Eastern
likely
as
production declines due to the war and insurance companies decide to drop their risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and Venezuela would likely stop selling oil to the
United States and Europe. From there, things could deteriorate as they did in the 1930s.

The world economy would head into a

tailspin; international acrimony would rise; and Iraqi and Afghani citizens might fully turn on the United States, immediately requiring
the deployment of more American troops. Russia, China, Venezuela, and maybe Brazil and Turkeyall of which essentially
support Irancould be tempted to form an alliance and openly challenge the U.S. hegemony. Russia and China might
rearm their injured Iranian protege overnight, just as "Nixon rearmed Israel, and threaten to intervene, just as the U.S.S.R. threatened to join Egypt and Syria in 1973.
President Obamas response would likely put U.S. forces on nuclear alert, replaying Nixons nightmarish scenario. Iran
may well feel duty-bound to respond to a unilateral attack by its Israeli archenemy, but it knows that it could not take on the United States head-to-head. In contrast, if
the United States leads the attack, Irans response would likely be muted. If Iran chooses to absorb an American-led strike, its allies would likely protest and send
weapons but would probably not risk using force. While no one has a crystal ball, leaders should be risk-averse when choosing war as a foreign policy tool. If
attacking Iran is deemed necessary, Israel must wait for an American green light.

World War III.

A unilateral Israeli strike could ultimately spark

2nc prolif impact


Congressional overrule causes immediate prolif
Ilan Goldenberg, senior fellow, Center for a New American Secrity, is the Iran Deal the New
Obamacare? POLITICO, 31715, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/irannuclear-deal-obamacare-116162.html#.VR8EU_nF_D4, accessed 4-3-15.
The question would no longer be whether a deal is a good deal or a bad deal, but what

happens if after the president signs an


agreement it is then overturned by a veto-proof majority in Congress with the whole world watching. In that scenario, the day
after the Senate rejects an agreement or levies new sanctions, Iran would remove the constraints on its nuclear
program, which has been essentially frozen since the interim agreement was implemented in January 2014. Key Iranian trading partners such
as China and India, which have abided by sanctions due both to American pressure and to recognition that it was Iranian bad faith that had created

sanctions regime would begin to unravel and Iran would find itself
unconstrained and able to go even further. There would also likely be an escalation of the covert war between
Israel and Iran with a potential rise of cyber and terrorist attacks as well as the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. If Irans nuclear
program accelerates the Israelis might also begin to threaten military action. Meanwhile, Congressional action
would likely undercut Irans pragmatic President Hassan Rouhani and instead empower hardliners in Tehran who argued all along
the nuclear crisis, would likely blame the United States. The

that the Americans could not be trusted.

Regional WMD spread and Israeli preemptive strikes


Philip Stevens 13, associate editor and chief political commentator for the Financial Times, Nov
14 2013, The four big truths that are shaping the Iran talks,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af170df6-4d1c-11e3-bf32-00144feabdc0.html
The who-said-what game about last weekends talks in Geneva has become a distraction. The six-power

negotiations with
Tehran to curb Irans nuclear programme may yet succeed or fail. But wrangling between the US and France on the terms of an
acceptable deal should not allow the trees to obscure the forest. The organising facts shaping the negotiations have not changed. The first of these
is that Tehrans

acquisition of a bomb would be more than dangerous for the Middle East and for wider
international security. It would most likely set off a nuclear arms race that would see Saudi Arabia,
Turkey and Egypt signing up to the nuclear club. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty would be
shattered. A future regional conflict could draw Israel into launching a pre-emptive nuclear
strike. This is not a region obviously susceptible to cold war disciplines of deterrence. The second
ineluctable reality is that Iran has mastered the nuclear cycle. How far it is from building a bomb remains a subject
of debate. Different intelligence agencies give different answers. These depend in part on what the spooks actually know and in part on what their
political masters want others to hear. The progress of an Iranian warhead programme is one of the known unknowns that have often wreaked
havoc in this part of the world. Israel points to an imminent threat. European agencies are more relaxed, suggesting Tehran is still two years or so
away from a weapon. Western diplomats broadly agree that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not taken a definitive decision to step over the line. What
Iran has been seeking is what diplomats call a breakout capability the capacity to dash to a bomb before the international community could
effectively mobilise against it. The third fact and this one is hard for many to swallow is that neither a negotiated settlement nor the air strikes
long favoured by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israels prime minister, can offer the rest of the world a watertight insurance policy. It should be possible
to construct a deal that acts as a plausible restraint and extends the timeframe for any breakout but no amount of restrictions or intrusive
monitoring can offer a certain guarantee against Tehrans future intentions. By the same token, bombing

Irans nuclear sites

could certainly delay the programme, perhaps for a couple of years. But, assuming that even the hawkish Mr Netanyahu is not
proposing permanent war against Iran, air strikes would not end it. You cannot bomb knowledge and
technical expertise. To try would be to empower those in Tehran who say the regime will be safe
only when, like North Korea, it has a weapon. So when Barack Obama says the US will never allow Iran to get the bomb he is
indulging in, albeit understandable, wishful thinking. The best the international community can hope for is that, in
return for a relaxation of sanctions, Iran will make a judgment that it is better off sticking with a
threshold capability. To put this another way, if Tehran does step back from the nuclear brink it will be
because of its own calculation of the balance of advantage. The fourth element in this dynamic is that Iran now
has a leadership that, faced with the severe and growing pain inflicted by sanctions, is prepared to talk.

There is nothing to say that Hassan Rouhani, the president, is any less hard-headed than previous Iranian leaders, but he does seem ready to
weigh the options.

Strikes escalate, trigger biological warfare and draw in Russia and China
Dennis Ray Morgan 9, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin Campus - South Korea,
Futures, Volume 41, Issue 10, December 2009, Pages 683-693
This scenario has gained even more plausibility since a January 2007 Sunday Times report [13] of an

Israeli intelligence leak that Israel


against Iran, using low-yield bunker busting nukes to destroy Irans supposedly secret underground nuclear
facilities. In Moores scenario, non-nuclear neighboring countries would then respond with conventional rockets and
chemical, biological and radiological weapons. Israel then would retaliate with nuclear strikes on several
countries, including a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan, who then retaliates with an attack not only on Israel but preemptively striking India as well. Israel then initiates the Samson option with attacks on other Muslim
countries, Russia, and possibly the anti-Semitic cities of Europe. At that point, all-out nuclear war ensues as the
U.S. retaliates with nuclear attacks on Russia and possibly on China as well.11
was considering a strike

Bio weapons risk Extinction


Anders Sandberg 8, is a James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity
Institute at Oxford University; Jason G. Matheny, PhD candidate in Health Policy and
Management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and special consultant to the
Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center; Milan M. irkovi, senior
research associate at the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade and assistant professor of
physics at the University of Novi Sad in Serbia and Montenegro, 9/8/8, How can we reduce the
risk of human extinction?, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,http://www.thebulletin.org/webedition/features/how-can-we-reduce-the-risk-of-human-extinction
The risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those from natural ones. Although great progress has been made in reducing
the number of nuclear weapons in the world, humanity is still threatened by the possibility of a global thermonuclear war and a resulting
nuclear winter. We may

face even greater risks from emerging technologies. Advances in synthetic

biology might make it possible to engineer pathogens capable of extinction-level pandemics. The knowledge,
equipment, and materials needed to engineer pathogens are more accessible than those needed to build nuclear weapons. And unlike other
weapons, pathogens

are self-replicating, allowing a small arsenal to become exponentially destructive. Pathogens have been

implicated in the extinctions of many wild species. Although most pandemics "fade out" by reducing the density of susceptible
populations, pathogens with wide host ranges in multiple species can reach even isolated individuals. The intentional or unintentional release
of engineered

pathogens with high transmissibility, latency, and lethality might be capable of


causing human extinction. While such an event seems unlikely today, the likelihood may increase as biotechnologies continue to
improve at a rate rivaling Moore's Law.

IMPACT ISIS

1nc ISIS impact


Nuclear deal key to check ISIS
Iran Project 14 (signed and endorsed by over 30 national security experts, including Zbigniew
Brzenzinski, Joseph Circincione, Joseph Nye, Paul Pillar, Ryan Crocker, Leslie Gelb, Brent
Scowcroft, and Richard Lugar) "Iran and Its Neighbors: Regional Implications for U.S. Policy of
a Nuclear Agreement," Sept 2014, www.scribd.com/doc/239959345/Iran-and-Its-NeighborsRegional-Implications-for-U-S-Policy-of-a-Nuclear-Agreement,
This fourth report of The Iran Project looks beyond the diplomatic, economic, and military aspects of the nuclear issuethe subjects of previous
publicationsto examine Iran's relations with its neighbors, and the possibility that a

nuclear agreement could increase


American leverage in the region. The nuclear issue has loomed so large for so long that it has heavily inuenced how many see
Iran. Resolving this problem would settle a matter important in its own right and open up opportunities for U.S.
policy. A comprehensive agreement on Irans nuclear program will be a catalyst for change in the everturbulent Middle East. The United States has vital national interests at stake throughout the region and will need to develop strategies to face
the latest threats to its security. This may involve new forms of cooperationeven with unusual bed-fellows. Each player involved will react
differently to a nuclear accord, which will in turn affect overlapping and diverging interests with Iran. This report examines these dynamics and
the implications they will have for American policy in both the short and long term. The authors of this report and the national security experts
who endorse its overall ndings and recommendations share a number of broad understandings that have guided the analysis. We recognize that
Iranian policy and actions present serious challenges to American interests and are of high concern to Israel, the Gulf States, and others. Distrust
of Irans intentions in developing a large-scale nuclear program has contributed to the sanctions that the United States and other nations have
imposed. We remain rmly against any effort by Iran to develop nuclear weapons and recognize that even reaching a comprehensive agreement in
the current negotiations does not fully guarantee this outcome. We are persuaded, however, that concluding an agreement that imposes severe
restrictions on Irans nuclear activities and establishes a comprehensive and continual monitoring and verication program is the most effective
means of reducing the risks that Iran could acquire nuclear weapons. This report has been prepared amid events that suggest a tectonic shift in the
Middle East. The successes of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) threaten the unity of Iraq, exacerbate violence in Syria, and compound
the already grave humani-tarian crisis in the region. The severe unrest and current violence against Kurds in Iraq has increased pressure to
establish a separate state of Kurdistan and has further complicated Turkeys relations with Iraq, Syria, and Iran. The rise of ISIS has reinforced
Irans role in support of the government in Iraq and raises the possibility of U.S.Iran cooperation in stabilizing Iraq even before a nuclear
agreement is signed. The intensication of ShiiteSunni violence underlines the importance for the United States not siding with, nor appearing
to side with, either party in this intensifying sectarian conict. Additionally, as the United States withdraws from Afghanistan, it will need
regional partners (such as Iran) to strengthen that country against a violent future. We do not suggest that a nuclear agreement is the only event
that will spark new relationships in the Middle East. Nor are we arguing that it is essential to reach agreement in order that discussions can take
place with Iran on other vital regional problems. We do believe, however, that there

is a strong link between settling the


nuclear standoff and Americas ability to play an effective role in a rapidly changing Middle
East, and that a nuclear agreement will help unlock the door to new options. The United States is the
only outside power with the interest, leverage, and capacity to play a leading role in the region. It stands
to reap more benet than any other outside power from new patterns of cooperation. It will also bear the heaviest burdens
if it contributes unwittingly to further deterioration of this troubled area because it misunderstood or did not appreciate a fresh dynamic. A
tough-minded assessment of priorities is more important than ever. A comprehensive nuclear
agreement would enable the United States to perceive those priorities without every lens being colored
by that single issue. Talking with Iran and coordinating strategies with it against ISIS are
critical steps to making progress. While it is clear that discussions alone will not bring about agreement on common action, the opportunity
to work through differences diplomatically could help in understanding whether other cooperative efforts are possible in the region. Such changes
in the hostile relationship between the United States and Iran would unfold over several years and would depend on how Iran adjusts as it slowly
emerges from its present status as an international pariah. Should it fail to honor its obligations under a nuclear accord, a quite different scenario
would arise. The talks between Iran and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) produced an
important interim agreement, the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), in November 2013. Under the terms of the JPOA, Iran has taken signicant steps
to interrupt the advance of its nuclear program, has complied with its commitments to reduce stockpiles of enriched uranium, and is now poised
to grant greatly increased access and monitoring for many years ahead. Agreement to strict long-term limits to its nuclear activities and intrusive
inspections would clarify that Iran is serious. Moreover, a substantial period of more open engagement

with the world


would increase Tehrans economic and political stake in upholding the agreement. If the leaders of the
United States and Iran are prepared to take on their domestic political opponents opposition to the agreement now taking shape, then their
governments can turn to the broader agenda of regional issues. Failure

to sign an accord could have dangerous


consequences: Irans eventual acquisition of a nuclear weapon, a greatly reduced chance of defeating major
threats elsewhere in the region, and even war. This report differs from its predecessors in that it is more forward-looking, and neces-

sarily includes some speculation. We have nonetheless sought to provide a balanced analysis and to make our judgments fact-based, as reected
in extensive footnotes. Our analysis and recommendations are informed by some of the leading experts in the eld, several of whom prepared
early drafts of the report. HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PAPER ESSAYS ON IRANS SEVEN NEIGHBORS, NON-STATE ACTORS, ON
ENERGY AND ON THE UNITED STATES MILITARY PRESENCE The policies

toward Tehran in many states in the


region are shaped at least as much by their relations with Washington as they are by differences with Iran. For
several states, ties with the United States are the most important they have, and cannot be divorced
from other considerations. Some of these states believe that an improvement in U.S.Iran relations
might help fashion their own rapprochement with Tehran. Others, such as Israel, fear and oppose any form of U.S.
Iran cooperation. However, over time, an Iran that is more integrated into the world community might have a
stronger reason to pursue its interests through legitimate means rather than covert or illegal
routes. Iran will nd it difcult to resolve all the issues with its neighbors, yet it could eventually function as one of several poles in a
multipolar Middle East, each of which would present elements of conict with the United States as well as elements of potential cooperation.
This report contains individual essays on the relations Iran has with seven of its neighbors, in which we seek to convey how these relations might
evolve after a nuclear agreement. Every chapter includes an analysis of both sides of each relationship and the policy shifts that might be
anticipated. We have tried to be scrupulous in presenting what we believe Iran and each of its neighbors think and how they approach each other.
Also in this section are essays on Iran's relations with key non-state actors, on energy, and on the U.S. military presence in the Gulf. We believe
that these ten essays set the stage for the recommendations for U.S. policy that follow. Recommendations for U.S. policy. This is a summary of
the reports recommendations based on our analysis contained in the foregoing essays. Talks with Iran. The United States must make every effort
to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear agreement that limits Irans enrichment of uranium and production and separation of plutonium in line with
civilian purposes and provides for comprehensive inspection and monitoring of that program. Assuming the successful completion of
negotiations, the US should develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with Iran on a wide range of regional issues. The U.S. and its friends
and allies should follow a two-track approach of pres-sure and incentives. While maintaining a watchful eye on Irans compliance with a
readiness to bring pressure when needed, the United States and others should promote trade, investment, and other forms of cooperation that will
encourage Iran to adhere to its commitments. The U.S. must also maintain robust military cooperation with Israel and the Gulf States. After a
nuclear agreement is reached, the United States should enter into regular discussions with Iran, which should include all outstanding questions.
Although initially trust will be low, such discussions will be essential to determine the degree of possible cooperation. Regional Cooperation
against terrorist groups. A challenge for the U.S. will be to cooperate with nations in the region against terrorist threats without appear-ing to take
sides in the Sunni and Shia conict. The degradation and defeat of ISIS presents an opportunity for America to work even handedly with the
nations of the region to achieve a common goal. Cooperation with Iran would thus take place within a larger regional grouping that should
include the Gulf States and Turkey in addition to the Government of Iraq. After an agreement, the U.S. should test whether Iran would collaborate
on exchanges of information about ISIS and to discuss possible cooperation in direct action. However, even before an agreement is signed, given
that the U.S. has publicly stated that it will not engage with Iran on such an effort, it may be necessary to explore such possibilities indirectly
through intermediaries in the Iraqi government. None of these efforts with Iran for a common cause would negate or eliminate U.S. concerns
about Iran's relations with and support for other organizations that have used terrorist tactics. The U.S. should make clear in any talks with Iran
that it opposes Irans support for terrorism including Hezbollah and Hamas actions against Israel. Iraq. The United States should seek to work
with all the nations that border Iraq to preserve it as a unitary state. Partition of the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish regions in Iraq will almost
certainly lead to future conict and ethnic cleansing, as well as disrupt the stability of other nations, including Lebanon and Jordan. After an
agree-ment, the United States should encourage Iran to continue to press Baghdad on reconciliation, a more inclusive government, equitable
treatment for all Iraqis, and the institution of extensive reforms. It should also seek ways to complement U.S. training and strikes by air and
Special Forces against ISIS strongholds. Syria. Since there is no military solution to the Syrian civil war the U.S. should de-velop a political
strategy that could achieve short-term humanitarian objectives leading toward a long-term solution combined with steps that could defeat ISIS in
their home bases in Syria. After a nuclear agreement, the United States should consult with the United Nations and with other states to convene a
Geneva III meeting, with the aim of achieving immediate humanitarian aid, a cease-re in western Syria and a long-term solution to maintain
Syria as a unitary state. The constitution would guarantee civil and legal rights for its citizens and at some point internationally-supervised
elections. In such a process, the United States should seek the participation of Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and representatives of the
moderate Syrian opposition. The inclusion of Iran would be a crucial addition that would increase the possibility of success. Now that Assad has
begun to direct his military might against ISIS he should also be invited. Without these key players, especially Iran and the Syrian government,
another international meeting would be fruitless. Afghanistan. The United States should set a high priority on developing broad inter-national
support for Afghanistans transition to new leadership. In managing the period after U.S. forces depart, the emphasis should be on assuring the
countrys security, territorial integrity, and economic growth. Iran can play a critical part and, with cooperation of America, be brought in as a full
partner. Coordinating strategies could take the form of a trilateral working group of Iranian, Afghan, and American representatives. Israel.
Washington will have to make an extraordinary effort with Israel and its many supporters in the U.S. Congress to dampen hostility and promote
acceptance of a nuclear agreement. The United States will need to persuade senior Israeli ofcials that an agreement will increase their countrys
security. It will also have to address their desire for advanced weaponry and defense equipment, and to convince Tel Aviv that, should Israel
decide to attack Iran while the nuclear agreement is being implemented, this will be opposed by the United States. Turkey. America should mount
a diplomatic effort with Turkey to prepare for the period after the nuclear agreement and seek its help in encouraging Iran to play a constructive
role. With the lifting of sanctions, renewed trade between Iran and Turkey could provide early benets to both countries. The historic rivalry
between the two countries would suggest that Turkey is not likely to become an ally of Iran, but it could still work with Tehran on such critical
problems as defeating ISIS, building a stable and integrated Iraq, and addressing the future of the Kurds. U.S. military presence. The United
States should maintain an appropriate-sized force in the Gulf. While the draw down of American troops in Afghanistan will require less military
support from Gulf facilities, a presence in the region would still be need-ed to meet other contingencies, including the possibility of increased
action against ISIS, and to assure the Gulf States of Americas commitment to their security. Saudi Arabia and Gulf States cooperation. The
United States should look toward a reduction of tensions across the Gulf after a nuclear agreement. Specically, it should: reassure the Saudis and
other Gulf States of the continued presence of U.S. forces; urge all of the Gulf States to help Sunnis in Iraq and Syria to oppose ISIS: and
encourage greater cooperation among the Gulf States, particularly in the areas of petroleum, natural gas, and other commercial trade. The United
States will need to undertake a strenuous effort with the Saudi ruling family to assure it of Americas continuing good relations and of the benets

a nuclear agreement could bring. Energy. Following an accord, the United States and its European allies should encourage the development of
Irans vast energy resources, particularly natural gas, to ease Europes heavy dependence on Russia. The U.S. should also promote the expansion
of energy interconnectivity through pipelines and electricity grids, and cross-border projects in the region. Such cooperation will not eliminate
conict from the Gulf, but shared interests in peaceful, reliable, and protable energy markets could become a cornerstone of new intra-regional
relations. ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY AFTER A FAILURE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT Should

a nuclear agreement not


be reached, the United States should prepare itself for a sustained confrontation with Iran and realize
that, far from being a partner, it would more likely become an even greater obstacle to
American interests. Failure in negotiations would lead Congress, probably with the support of the administration, to increase sanctions.
The immediate consequence could be a failure to get many other nations to remain committed to the sanctions regime. Without an
agreement, it is unlikely that the existing Iranian government or its replacement would have the authority or
desire to agree to collaborate over other U.S. objectives in the regionIraq, ISIS, Syria, and
Afghanistan. Irans reaction to the renewal of sanctions would probably be to build its nuclear program
with renewed conviction in Americas assumed interest in regime change. Tehran might make the decision to build a nuclear weapon,
calculating that hostility from the United States was inevitable and unending, and that what Iran most needed was a deterrent against possible
military attack. This environment could lead the United States and Israel to threaten military strikes, with the probability of war, either deliberate
or inadvertent. A further consideration is that, if the Rouhani government failed

to reach a nuclear agreement and relieve


sanctions, then the conservatives in Tehran would return to dominate the thinking and actions of the
Supreme Leader, resulting in a more reactionary, more corrupt, and poorer government more likely to violate the
rights of its citizens.Whether negotiations fail will depend on the negotiating behavior of both sides. But failure will likely have a
far-reaching negative impact and inhibit Americas ability to be strategic in managing the
challenges and threats to its interests throughout the Middle East over the next decade and beyond.

Unchecked ISIS has ability to orchestrate bio attack in the US


Theodore Schleifer 5/12/2015 (CNN Politics Reporter) Former CIA official: ISIS terrorist
attack in U.S. is possible, CNN Politics, http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/12/politics/michaelmorell-isis-attack-osama-bin-laden/
Washington (CNN) Islamic

militants have the ability to direct individuals to conduct small-scale attacks


in the United States and could pose an even greater threat in the future, according to the former deputy director
of the Central Intelligence Agency. Michael Morell, a longtime intelligence analyst who served as acting director of the agency
after the resignation of David Petraeus in 2012, warned that if ISIS was allowed to take refuge in Iraq and Syria, they
could orchestrate an attack in the United States. The group has claimed responsibility for a recent attack in Garland, Texas,
where police killed two gunmen. Morell told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead" that it is "not far-fetched" that ISIS or other
terrorist groups could gain access to weapons of mass destruction. "That would be the nightmare
scenario: a terrorist attack, here in the United States, here in New York, another major city, that involved either
chemical, biological or other nuclear weapons," he said. Morell also disputed a report this week by Pulitzer Prize-winning
journalist Seymour Hersh that a walk-in informant tipped the United States off to the location of Osama bin Laden before the American military
killed him. "I can't tell you that somebody didn't walk into a station somewhere and say 'I know where Osama bin Laden is.'" Morell said. "But I
can guarantee you that no one walk in ever provided information that actually led us to Osama bin Laden."

Bio weapons risk Extinction


Anders Sandberg 8, is a James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity
Institute at Oxford University; Jason G. Matheny, PhD candidate in Health Policy and
Management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and special consultant to the
Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center; Milan M. irkovi, senior
research associate at the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade and assistant professor of
physics at the University of Novi Sad in Serbia and Montenegro, 9/8/8, How can we reduce the
risk of human extinction?, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,http://www.thebulletin.org/webedition/features/how-can-we-reduce-the-risk-of-human-extinction
The risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those from natural ones. Although great progress has been made in reducing

the number of nuclear weapons in the world, humanity is still threatened by the possibility of a global thermonuclear war and a resulting
nuclear winter. We may

face even greater risks from emerging technologies. Advances in synthetic

biology might make it possible to engineer pathogens capable of extinction-level pandemics. The knowledge,
equipment, and materials needed to engineer pathogens are more accessible than those needed to build nuclear weapons. And unlike other
weapons, pathogens

are self-replicating, allowing a small arsenal to become exponentially destructive. Pathogens have been

implicated in the extinctions of many wild species. Although most pandemics "fade out" by reducing the density of susceptible
populations, pathogens with wide host ranges in multiple species can reach even isolated individuals. The intentional or unintentional release
of engineered

pathogens with high transmissibility, latency, and lethality might be capable of


causing human extinction. While such an event seems unlikely today, the likelihood may increase as biotechnologies continue to
improve at a rate rivaling Moore's Law.

Deal Solves ISIS


Nuclear deal key to check ISIS thats the Iran Project 4 reasons
1. Leverage deal is a catalyst for change in the Mid-East that unlocks new options
Its a game-changer for diplomacy.
2. Strategy Iran standoff makes strategic priority assessment impossible well
screw up on ISIS because were distracted by Iran.
3. Coordination Iran has the tools to deal with ISIS- deal gives them the motiveand ONLY the deal allows US-Iran coordination necessary to solve.
4. Spoiling sanctions empower Iranian hardliners who ensure Iran acts as a
spoiler- massively increases the danger.
Prefer our evidence over 30 heavy-hitting IR scholars and seasoned national
security experts have signed on theres not more qualified evidence in this debate.
US Iran deal key to check ISIS. Cooperative Iran ONLY way to broker a solution
in Syria
Kate Gould 11/24/2014 (FCNL legislative associate for Mid-east policy) "What Iran talks mean
for ISIS fight," 11-24-14, www.cnn.com/2014/11/24/opinion/mcdermott-gould-iran-extension/
Washington and Tehran didn't reach the final nuclear deal they were striving for, but the

short-term extension of talks announced


help ensure more progress can be made, both in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran and reducing the
chances of yet another war in the Middle East. True, significant gaps remain to be bridged between the United States and Iran, and
it is clearer than ever that nuclear diplomacy is not a sprint but a marathon. Yet these negotiations are worth persevering with,
not just because we are on the brink of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but also because of the
potentially far-reaching impact on stabilizing the Middle East. Remember, Iran has enough power in
Syria to reduce the bloodletting -- or to intensify the war. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria's
recruiting base depends in part on atrocities being committed by the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to
continue to grow. Iran's unmatched influence over the Assad regime therefore makes it a critical
player in negotiating a political solution to Syria's civil war. As Staffan de Mistura, the U.N. special envoy to Syria, pointed
out, "Iran is an important player and I hope a partner in what should be a political process." Both of de Mistura's predecessors,
Monday should

Lakhdar Brahimi and Kofi Annan, as well as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon have also pressed for Iran's inclusion in negotiations to end
the Syrian civil war. The United States has long insisted that Iran must first sign the Geneva Communique before it is permitted a seat at the table
in the Syria negotiations. The Geneva Communique is the preliminary accord calling for a "transitional governing body" to rule Syria, which was
signed at the first international negotiations over Syria's future. While Tehran has refused this precondition, Iran's
talks may

participation in the

be the only way to secure even the most limited ceasefire agreement. The transitional governing body
relations between the
United States and Iran make that buy-in from Tehran nearly impossible. The recent thaw, however,
offers hope. The Iran Project recently released a report by more than 30 national security
experts concluding that there is "a strong link between settling the nuclear standoff and
America's ability to play an effective role in a rapidly changing Middle East, and that a nuclear
agreement will help unlock the door to new options." The bipartisan signatories include two former
U.S. ambassadors to Israel, Thomas Pickering and Dan Kurtzer, as well as pre-eminent national security advisers Brent
Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski. The nuclear deal could help unlock the door to a political solution to the
Syrian civil war, a prospect raised in the report. The authors rightly noted, for example, that "the inclusion of Iran would be
a crucial addition that would increase the possibility of success" to relieve the immediate humanitarian crisis and
develop a long-term political solution for Syria's future. Indeed, the report went as far as to say that, because Iran is so influential
called for by the preliminary agreement may never come into being without Iran's buy-in. Strained

in the Syrian civil war, "another international meeting would be fruitless" if talks don't include
Iran as well as the Syrian government. So long as Iran is part of the problem in Syria, engagement with Tehran
has to be part of a solution. That is not to say that engaging Tehran to address the Syrian crises will be a quick fix for the brutality of
either ISIS or the Syrian regime. Iranian hard-liners in high places are intent on providing a military lifeline
to the Assad regime. The power struggle between the hard-line Revolutionary Guards and Iranian President Hassan
Rouhani's more moderate faction is alive and well -- and the hard-liners currently control Iran's Syria policy. Finally, a
nuclear accord may also help tip the balance in internal Iranian politics, with a breakthrough likely
to shore up Rouhani's pro-engagement platform, providing a greater incentive for the supreme leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to relinquish some control of Iran's foreign policy to Rouhani's more moderate
camp. Ultimately, there is far more at stake in the ongoing talks with Iran than just the crucial nuclear issues
being discussed. ISIS thrives on slaughter in Syria, but a political solution for the war-ravaged country has so far proven
elusive. A final accord to rein in Iran's nuclear program could bring diplomatic options to stabilize
the Middle East that were never previously on the table.

Deal key to UR-Iran cooperation on ISIS


Andrea Mitchell 7/3/2015 Iran: 'Good' Nuke Deal Could Lead to Cooperation in Fight Against
Extremists, NBC News, http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/good-nucleardeal-could-spur-iran-help-fight-extremists-foreign-n386521
Iran's foreign minister suggested Friday that a nuclear deal with the West has "never been closer," and a "good deal"
would open the door to his nation's cooperation in the global fight against terrorism. It's the first
time that Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has made any mention of taking part in combating violent extremists. "We are ready to strike a
balanced and good deal and open new horizons to address important common challenges," Zarif says in English in a YouTube video tweeted out.
"Our

common threat today is the growing menace of violent extremism and outright barbarism," Zarif adds,
network ISIS. "The menace we're facing and I say we, because no one is spared is embodied by the hooded
men who are ravaging the cradle of civilization. To deal with this new challenge, new approaches are badly
needed."
hinting at the terror

Impact Attack t/case New Surveillance Measures


Disad turns the case attacks will result in a NEW and LARGER government
surveillance program.
Richard Alan Clarke et al 12/2013 (Richard Alan Clark former National Coordinator for
Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism for the United States, Michael Joseph
Morell was deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Cass Robert Sunstein
Professor of Law at Harvard Law School) LIBERTY AND SECURITY IN A CHANGING
WORLD, https://www.google.com/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https
%3A%2F2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2F2013-12
12_rg_final_report.pdf&ei=Db0yVdDjKIKdNtTXgZgE&usg=AFQjCNH0S_Fo9dckL9bRarVpi
4M6pq6MQ&bvm=bv.91071109,d.eXY
The government

should base its decisions on a careful analysis of consequences, including both


benefits and costs (to the extent feasible). In many areas of policy, public officials are increasingly insistent on the need for careful
analysis of the consequences of their decisions and on the importance of relying not on intuitions and anecdotes, but on evidence and data,
including benefits and costs (to the extent feasible). In the context of government regulation, President Ronald Reagan established a national
commitment to careful analysis of regulations in his Executive Order 12291, issued in 1981. In 2011, President Barack Obama issued Executive
Order 13563, which renewed and deepened the commitment to quantitative, evidence-based analysis, and added a number of additional
requirements to improve regulatory review, directing agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible in order to achieve regulatory ends. A central component of Executive Order 13563 involves
retrospective analysis, meant to ensure not merely prospective analysis of (anticipated) costs and benefits, but also continuing efforts to explore
what policies have actually achieved, or failed to achieve, in the real world. In our view, both prospective and retrospective analyses have
important roles to play in the domain under discussion, though they also present distinctive challenges, above all because of limits in available
knowledge and challenges in quantifying certain variables. Before they are undertaken, surveillance
(to the extent feasible) on

decisions should depend


a careful assessment of the anticipated consequences, including the full range

of relevant risks. Such decisions should also be subject to continuing scrutiny, including retrospective analysis, to ensure that any errors
are corrected. As we have seen, there is always a possibility that acquisition of more informationwhether in the US or abroadmight
ultimately prove helpful. But that abstract possibility does not, by itself, provide a sufficient justification for acquiring more information. Because
risk management is inevitably involved, the question is one of benefits and costs, which requires careful attention to the range of possible
outcomes and also to the likelihood that they will actually occur. To the extent feasible, such attention must be based on the available evidence.
Where evidence is unavailable, public officials must acknowledge the limits of what they know. In

some cases, public officials are


reasonably attempting to reduce risks that are not subject to specification or quantification in advance. In such
cases, experience may turn out to be the best teacher; it may show that programs are not working well, and that the
benefits and costs are different from what was anticipated. Continued learning and constant scrutiny, with close reference to the consequences, is
necessary to safeguard both national security and personal privacy, and to ensure proper management of the full range of risks that are involved.
Finally, in constructing oversight and monitoring of intelligence agencies and particularly of surveillance, the US Government must take care to
address perceptions of potential abuse, as well as any realities. To maintain and enhance the required level of public trust, especially careful
oversight is advisable. For reasons that we have outlined, it

is always challenging to strike the right balance between the


security and individual liberty, but as history teaches, it is particularly
difficult to reconcile these values in times of real or perceived national crisis. Human nature being what it is,
there is inevitably a risk of overreaction when we act out of fear. At such moments, those charged
with the responsibility for keeping our nation safe, supported by an anxious public, have too often
often competing values of national

gone beyond programs and policies that were in fact necessary and appropriate to protect the nation and taken steps that unnecessarily and
sometimes dangerously jeopardized

individual freedom. This phenomenon is evident throughout


American history. Too often, we have overreacted in periods of national crisis and then later, with the
benefit of hindsight, recognized our failures, reevaluated our judgments, and attempted to correct our policies going
forward. We must learn the lessons of history. As early as 1798, Congress enacted the Sedition Act, now widely regarded as a violation of the
most fundamental principles of freedom of expression. Nor is the historical verdict kind to a wide range of liberty restricting measures undertaken
in other periods of great national anxiety, including the repeated suspensions of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the suppression of
dissent during World War I, the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the campaign to expose and harass persons suspected of
disloyalty during the McCarthy era, and the widespread and unlawful spying on critics of the governments policies during the Vietnam War. It
is true that when

the nation is at risk, or engaged in some kind of military conflict, the argument for new

restrictions may seem, and even be, plausible. Serious threats may tip preexisting balances. But
it is also true that in such periods, there is a temptation to ignore the fact that risks are on all sides of the equation, and to compromise liberty at
the expense of security. One of our central goals in this Report is to provide secure foundations for future decisions, when public fears may
heighten those dangers. With

respect to surveillance in particular, the nations history is lengthy and elaborate, but the
issues in the modern era can be traced back directly to the Vietnam War. Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard
Nixon encouraged government intelligence agencies to investigate alleged subversives in the
antiwar movement. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) engaged in extensive infiltration and
electronic surveillance of individuals and organizations opposed to the war; the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) monitored a broad array of antiwar organizations and activities, accumulating
information on more than 300,000 people; and Army intelligence initiated its own domestic spying operation, gathering
information on more than 100,000 opponents of the Vietnam War, including Members of Congress, civil rights leaders, and journalists. The
government sought not only to investigate its critics on a massive scale, but also to expose, disrupt, and neutralize their efforts to affect public
opinion.

Impact Bioweapons o/w nuke war


Nuclear war doesnt cause extinction
Seitz, 11 -- Harvard University Center for International Affairs visiting scholar
(Russell, Nuclear winter was and is debatable, Nature, 7-7-11, Vol 475, pg37
Alan Robock's

contention that there has been no real scientific debate about the 'nuclear winter' concept is itself debatable (Nature
473,275-276; 2011). This potential climate disaster, popularized in Science in 1983, rested on the output of a one dimensional
model that was later shown to overestimate the smoke a nuclear holocaust might engender. More refined estimates,
combined with advanced three-dimensional models (see go.nature.com/ kss8te), have dramatically reduced the
extent and severity of the projected cooling. Despite this, Carl Sagan, who co-authored the 1983 Science paper, went so far as
to posit "the extinction of Homo sapiens" (C. Sagan Foreign Affairs 63,75-77; 1984). Some regarded this apocalyptic prediction as an exercise in
mythology. George Rathjens of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology protested: "Nuclear

winter is the worst example of


misrepresentation of science to the public in my memory," (see go.nature.com/yujz84) and climatologist Kerry Emanuel
observed that the subject had "become notorious for its lack of scientific integrity" (Nature 319, 259;1986).
the

Robock's single-digit fall in temperature is at odds with the subzero (about -25 C) continental cooling originally projected for a wide spectrum of
nuclear wars. Whereas Sagan predicted darkness at noon from a US-Soviet nuclear conflict, Robock

projects global sunlight that


orders of magnitude brighter for a Pakistan-India conflict literally the difference between night
and day. Since 1983, the projected worst-case cooling has fallen from a Siberian deep freeze spanning
11,000 degreedays Celsius (a measure of the severity of winters) to numbers so unseasonably small as to call the very term
'nuclear winter' into question.
is several

Impact Bioweapons t/case state collapse


Turns case pandemic causes state collapse and war
Brown 2003 (Jennifer Brown RAND S&T policy analyst) "The Global Threat of New and
Reemerging Infectious Diseases; Reconciling U.S. National Security and Public Health Policy,"
www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1602.html
The argument that the transnational spread of disease poses a threat to human security rests on the simple
proposition that it seriously threatens both the individual and the quality of life that a person is able to attain within a given society, polity or state.
Specifically, this occurs in at least six ways. First

and most fundamental, disease killsfar surpassing war as a


threat to human life. AIDS alone is expected to have killed over 80 million people by the year 2011, while tuberculosis (TB), one of the
viruss main opportunistic diseases, accounts for three million deaths every year, including 100,000 children. 2 1 In general, a staggering 1,500
people die each hour from infectious ailments, the vast bulk of which are caused by just six groups of disease: HIV/AIDS,
malaria, measles, pneumonia, TB, and dysentery and other gastrointestinal disorders. 22 Second, if left unchecked, disease can
undermine public confidence in the states general custodian function, in the process eroding a
politys overall governing legitimacy as well as undermining the ability of the state itself to
function. When large-scale outbreaks occur, such effects can become particularly acute as the
ranks of first responders and medical personnel are decimated, making it doubly difficult for an already
stressed government to respond adequately. During the initial weeks of the anthrax attacks in fall 2001, the lack of
coordination at the federal level, especially with regard to communication, led to a loss of confidence by some citizens, especially postal workers
in Washington, D.C. Potentially exposed individuals were given conflicting advice on antibiotic treatment and the efficacy of the anthrax vaccine.
The general public, largely because of inconsistent information enunciated by government officials, bought Cipro, the antibiotic approved for the
treatment of anthrax, in large numbers. Similarly, in 1996, Japan suffered a severe food poisoning epidemic caused by Escherichia coli O157.
Over the course of two months, eight people died and thousands of others were sickened. The perceived inability of the Tokyo government to
enact an appropriate response generated widespread public criticism, compounding popular dissatisfaction with an administration that was still
reeling from the effects of the previous years Kobe earthquake. As one commentator remarked at the height of the crisis, The cries against
government authorities are growing louder by the day. . . . The impression here [in Japan] is too much talk and not enough action has led to yet
another situation that has spun out of control. 23 Third, disease

adversely affects the economic foundation upon


which both human and state security depends. The fiscal burden imposed by the HIV/AIDS epidemic
provides a case in point. Twenty-five million people are currently HIV-positive in subSaharan Africa, costing already impoverished
governments billions of dollars in direct economic costs and loss of productivity. Treating HIV-related illnesses in South Africa, the worst-hit
country on the continent, is expected to generate annual increases in healthcare costs in excess of US$500 million by 2009 (see Chapter Three). 2
4 South and Southeast Asia are expected to surpass Africa in terms of infections by the year 2010. If this in fact occurs, demographic

upheaval could tax and widely destabilize countries with fragile economies and public health
infrastructures. Economies will be greatly affected by the loss of a stable and productive
workforce as well as from a reduction of external capital investment, potentially reducing general
gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as 20 percent. 25 Fourth, disease can have a profound, negative
impact on a states social order, functioning, and psyche. In Papua New Guinea, for instance, AIDS has severely
distorted the wa n t o k systemwhich formalizes reciprocal responsibilities, ensuring that those who hit hard times will be taken care of by
extended familybecause of the fear and stigma attached to the disease. 26 The Ebola outbreak that hit the crowded Ugandan district of Gulu in
late 2000 caused people to completely withdraw from contact with the outside world, reducing common societal interactions and functions to a
bare minimum. 27 Epidemics may also lead to forms of post-traumatic stress. A number of analyses have been undertaken to assess the long-term
psychological effects on those who have been continually subjected to poor sanitary conditions and outbreaks of disease. The studies consistently
document the extreme emotional stress suffered by these people and the difficulty of integrating them back into normal society. 28 Fifth, the
spread of infectious

diseases can act as a catalyst for regional instability. Epidemics can severely
undermine defense force capabilities (just as they distort civilian worker productivity). By
galvanizing mass cross-border population flows and fostering economic problems, they can also
help create the type of widespread volatility that can quickly translate into heightened tension both
within and between states. This combination of military, demographic, and fiscal effects has already been created by the AIDS crisis in Africa.
Indeed, the

U.S. State Department increasingly speculates that the disease will emerge as one of the
most significant conflict starters and possibly even war outcome determinants during the next decade.

A2 no ISIS WMD attacks


ISIS is a real threat1. Intel proves- thats Moussa- 3 warrants
A. Captured intel- ISIS laptop reveals detailed plans to build bioweapons- proves
motive- theyre not there yet but crushing them now is key.
B. Territory- sweeping gains give ISIS control over universities and labs- they have
state-level resources and the ability to work behind the front lines not available
anywhere else.
C. Scientists- recruits with a science background ensure weaponization unless we
crush them now.
Jenan Moussa 8/28/2014 (Al Aan reporter based in Pakistan) "Found: The Islamic States
Terror Laptop of Doom," Foreign Policy,
Buried in a Dell computer captured in Syria are lessons for making bubonic plague bombs and missives on
using weapons of mass destruction. Abu Ali, a commander of a moderate Syrian rebel group in northern Syria, proudly shows a black laptop
partly covered in dust. We took it this year from an ISIS hideout, he says. Abu Ali says the fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham
(ISIS), which have since rebranded themselves as the Islamic State, all fled before he and his men attacked the building. The attack occurred in
January in a village in the Syrian province of Idlib, close to the border with Turkey, as part of a larger anti-ISIS offensive occurring at the time.
We found the laptop and the power cord in a room, he continued, I took it with me. But I have no clue if it still works or if it contains anything
interesting. As we switched on the Dell laptop, it indeed still worked. Nor was it password-protected. But then came a huge disappointment:
After we clicked on My Computer, all the drives appeared empty. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. Upon closer inspection, the ISIS
laptop wasnt empty at all: Buried in the hidden files section of the computer were 146 gigabytes of material, containing a total of 35,347 files
in 2,367 folders. Abu Ali allowed us to copy all these files which included documents in French, English, and Arabic onto an external hard
drive. The laptops contents turn out to be a treasure trove of documents that provide ideological justifications for jihadi organizations and
practical training on how to carry out the Islamic States deadly campaigns. They include videos of Osama bin Laden, manuals on how to make
bombs, instructions for stealing cars, and lessons on how to use disguises in order to avoid getting arrested while traveling from one jihadi hot
spot to another. But after hours upon hours of scrolling through the documents, it became clear that the ISIS laptop contains more than the typical
propaganda and instruction manuals used by jihadists. The documents also suggest that the laptops owner was teaching himself about the use of
biological weaponry, in preparation for a potential attack that would have shocked the world. The information on the laptop makes clear that its
owner is a Tunisian national named Muhammed S. who joined ISIS in Syria and who studied chemistry and physics at two universities in
Tunisias northeast. Even more disturbing is how he planned to use that education: The

ISIS laptop contains a 19-page


document in Arabic on how to develop biological weapons and how to weaponize the bubonic
plague from infected animals. The advantage of biological weapons is that they do not cost a lot of money, while the human
casualties can be huge, the document states. The document includes instructions for how to test the weaponized
disease safely, before it is used in a terrorist attack. When the microbe is injected in small mice, the symptoms of the
disease should start to appear within 24 hours, the document says. The laptop also includes a 26-page fatwa, or Islamic ruling,
on the usage of weapons of mass destruction. If Muslims cannot defeat the kafir [unbelievers] in a different way, it is
permissible to use weapons of mass destruction, states the fatwa by Saudi jihadi cleric Nasir al-Fahd, who is
currently imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. Even if it kills all of them and wipes them and their descendants off the face of the Earth. When
contacted by phone, a staff member at a Tunisian university listed on Muhammeds exam papers confirmed that he indeed studied chemistry and
physics there. She said the university lost track of him after 2011, however. Out of the blue, she asked: Did you find his papers inside Syria?
Asked why she would think that Muhammeds belongings would have ended up in Syria, she answered, For further questions about him, you
better ask state security. An astonishing number of Tunisians have flocked to the Syrian battlefield since the revolt began. In June, Tunisias
interior minister estimated that at least 2,400 Tunisians were fighting in the country, mostly as members of the Islamic State. This isnt the first
time that jihadists have attempted to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even before the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda had experimented with a
chemical weapons program in Afghanistan. In 2002, CNN obtained a tape showing al Qaeda members testing poison gas on three dogs, all of
which died. Nothing

on the ISIS laptop, of course, suggests that the jihadists already possess these dangerous

weapons. And any jihadi organization contemplating a bioterrorist attack will face many difficulties: Al Qaeda tried unsuccessfully for years
to get its hands on such weapons, and the United States has devoted massive resources to preventing terrorists from making just this sort of
breakthrough. The

material on this laptop, however, is a reminder that jihadists are also hard at work
at acquiring the weapons that could allow them to kill thousands of people with one blow. The real difficulty in all of these weapons
[is] to actually have a workable distribution system that will kill a lot of people, said Magnus Ranstorp, research director
of the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defence College. But to produce quite

scary weapons is certainly within [the Islamic States] capabilities. The Islamic States sweeping
gains in recent months may have provided it with the capacity to develop such new and dangerous
weapons. Members of the jihadi group are not solely fighting on the front lines these days they also control
substantial parts of Syria and Iraq. The fear now is that men like Muhammed could be quietly working behind
the front lines for instance, in the Islamic State-controlled University of Mosul or in some
laboratory in the Syrian city of Raqqa, the groups de facto capital to develop chemical or biological weapons. In
short, the longer the caliphate exists, the more likely it is that members with a science
background will come up with something horrible. The documents found on the laptop of the
Tunisian jihadist, meanwhile, leave no room for doubt about the groups deadly ambitions.

ISIS has the ability to operate within the US intelligence community confirms
Rob Garver 6/22/2014 (Fiscal Times national correspondent) "ISIS May Be More Dangerous
Than Al Qaeda Ever Was," Fiscal Times, www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/22/ISISMay-Be-More-Dangerous-Al-Qaeda-Ever-Was
Others are more concerned, believing that ISIS Is looking more and more like Al Qaeda did in the years leading up to the September 11 attacks,
but with a crucial difference. Like Al Qaeda, ISIS

has plenty of money and, with its takeover of much of Iraq, a


safe place to operate. What it has that Al Qaeda did not is a large number of members from
the U.S. and other Western countries who have the ability to travel freely in the West. The
heads of both Congressional Intelligence Committees said they were concerned about the groups
ability to target the U.S. and its allies in Europe. ISIS is recruiting in Europe and the United States, Senate
Intelligence Committee Chair Diane Feinstein warned on CNNs State of the Union, and those recruits fighting with the group are prime
candidates for further radicalization. There are at least 100 American passport-holders fighting with ISIS,
she said, and an unknown number from European countries whose residents are free to travel to the United States without obtaining a visa.
There will be plots to kill Americans, Feinstein said. On Face the Nation, House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-MI), said

ISIS is well armed, well financed, and they have lots of free space in which to operate and
train. We know that they have intentions to send people who have shown up with Western passports back to the United States and back to
Europe. That is as dangerous as it gets. Now is it six months, three months, or a year? Were not sure. But I wouldnt wait. Its not
whack-a-mole. Its in our national security interest.

A2 No Bioweapons
Bioterror causes extinction synthetic biology makes engineered pathogens
possible- overwhelms genetic barriers and their defense- thats Sandberg.
ISIS can acquire or develop bioweapons territorial gains give them access to
universities and labs thats Schleifer and Moussa.
Synthetic biology creates means and motive for bioterror post-dates and swamps
their answers
Patrick Rose 2/24/2014 (Center for Health & Homeland Security senior policy analyst &
biosecurity expert) "DIY Bioterrorism Part II: The proliferation of bioterrorism through synthetic
biology," CBRNePortal, www.cbrneportal.com/diy-bioterrorism-part-ii-the-proliferation-ofbioterrorism-through-synthetic-biology/
In Part I of this series, we examined how the advancement of synthetic

biology has made bio-engineering accessible


to the mainstream biological community. Non-state actors who wish to employ biological agents for ill intent are sure to be
aware of how tangible bio-weapons are becoming as applications of synthetic biology become more
affordable and the probability of success increases with each scientific breakthrough. The willingness of non-state actors to engage in
biological attacks is not a new concept; however, the past biological threat environment has been subdued compared to that of conventional or
even chemical terrorism. The frequency and deadliness of biological attacks has, thankfully, been limited; much of which can be attributed to the
technical complexity or apparent ineptitude of the perpetrators developing biological weapons. Despite

the infrequency and


ineffectiveness of biological attacks in the last four decades, the threat may be changing with the
continued advancement of synthetic biology applications. Coupled with the ease of information sharing
and a rapidly growing do-it-yourself-biology (DIYbio) movement (discussed in Part I), the chances of
not only, more attacks, but potentially more deadly ones will inevitably increase. During the last half
century terrorist organizations have consistently had an interest in using biological weapons as a means of
attacking their targets, but only few have actually made a weapon and used it. The attraction is that terrorist activities with biological weapons are
difficult to detect and even more difficult to attribute without a specific perpetrator claiming responsibility. Since 1971 there have been more than
113,113 terrorist attacks globally and 33 of them have been biological. The majority of bio-terrorism incidents recorded occurred during the year
2001 (17 of the 33); before 2001 there were 10 incidents and since 2001 there were 6 (not counting the most recent Ricin attacks). The lack of a
discernable trend in use of bio-terrorism does not negate the clear intent of extremist organizations to use biological weapons. In fact, the capacity
to harness biological weapons more effectively today only increases the risk that they will successfully be employed.

The landscape is

changing: previously the instances where biological attacks had the potential to do the most harm (e.g., Rajneeshees cults Salmonella
attacks in 1984, Aum Shinri Kyos Botulinum toxin, and Anthrax attacks in the early 90s) included non-state actors with access to large amounts
of funding and scientists. Funding and a cadre of willing scientists does not guarantee success though. The

assertion was thus made


that biological weapons are not only expensive, they require advanced technical training to make
and are even more difficult to effectively perpetrate acts of terrorism with. While it is difficult to determine with certainty
whether the expense and expertise needed to create biological weapons has acted as a major deterrent for groups thinking of obtaining them,
many experts would argue that the cost/expertise barrier makes the threat from biological attacks extremely small. This assertion is supported by
the evidence that the vast majority of attacks have taken place in Western countries and was performed by Western citizens with advanced
training in scientific research. In the past decade the cost/expertise assertion has become less accurate.
Despite the lack of biological attacks, there are a number of very dangerous and motivated organizations that have or are actively pursuing
biological weapons. The largest and most outspoken organization has been the global Al Qaeda network, whose leaders have frequently and
passionately called for the development (or purchase) of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The principal message from Al Qaeda Central
and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has included the call to use biological WMDs to terrorize Western nations. Al Qaeda has had a
particular focus on biological and nuclear weapons because of their potential for greatest harm. Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Anwar
al-Awlaki have all called for attacks using biological weapons, going so far as to say that Muslims everywhere should seek to kill Westerners
wherever possible and that obtaining WMDs is the responsibility of all Muslims. Before the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda had spent
significant funds on building a bio-laboratory and had begun collecting scientists from around the world; however, the Afghanistan invasion and
subsequent global War on Terrorism is thought to have disrupted their capabilities and killed or captured many of their assets. Despite the
physical setbacks, this disruption does not appear to have changed the aggressive attitude towards obtaining WMDs (e.g., more recently U.S.
Intelligence has been concerned about AQAP attempting to make Ricin). The emergence of synthetic biology and DIYbio has increased the

likelihood that Al Qaeda will succeed in developing biological WMDs. The

low cost and significantly reduced level of


necessary expertise may change how many non-state actors view biological weapons as a
worthwhile investment. This is not to say that suddenly anyone can make a weapon or that it is
easy. To the contrary making an effective biological weapon will still be difficult, only much
easier and cheaper than it has been in the past. The rapid advancements of synthetic biology
could be a game changer, giving organizations currently pursuing biological weapons more
options, and encouraging other organizations to reconsider their worth. Because the bar for
attaining biological weapons has been lowered and is likely to continue to be lowered as more
advances in biological technology are made, it is important that the international community begin to formulate policy that protects advances in
science that acts to prevent the intentional misuse of synthetic biology. Disregard

for this consideration will be costly. A


successful attack with a potent biological weapon, where no pharmaceutical interventions might
exist, will be deadly and the impact of such an attack will reverberate around the globe because
biological weapons are not bound by international borders.

Synthetic biology makes bioterror accessible and lethal


Wong, 14 -- Oxbridge Biotech Roundtable
[Han Teng, "Colours of Biotechnology: Mutant flu A Potential Weapon for Bioterrorism?" 520-14, http://www.oxbridgebiotech.com/review/science-basics/mutant-flu-potential-weapon-fobioterrorism/#sthash.hh82btDg.dpuf
The dawn of genetic

engineering means scientists are able to manipulate DNA, and modify the genetic sequence of organisms for
the potential to be used to create biological entities for
use in bio-warfare. However, the non-systematic nature of such genetic engineering has resulted in low reproducibility as well as
high costs, limiting its appeal to terrorists. This looks set to change with the increasing adoption
of synthetic biology and could have an impact on the accessibility of these technologies. In recent years,
their own research ends. These technologies also have

the burgeoning field of genome engineering has provided us with the means to create and edit synthetic DNA in a specific fashion. DNA
assembly tools such as the Gibson assembly, circular polymerase extension cloning, sequence-ligation independent cloning and transformationassociated recombination have allowed the assembly of new DNA fragments up to sizes of 580 kb, as seen in the creation of the first synthetic
genome of Mycoplasma genitalium by the J. Craig Venter Institute [1]. The building blocks of a genome can be as small as a few thousand base
pairs a size that can be commercially synthesized at a relatively low cost. This means that we

can now assemble the genomes

of many known pathogenic viruses such as the 1918 Spanish flu virus [2, 3]. Tumpey et al. reconstructed the Spanish flu virus in
2005 in order to better characterise this lethal strain of flu. Their work demonstrated that it was possible to synthesize functional influenza viruses
from partial virus sequence data. The group hope to gain valuable insight in to its virulence from the assembled genome, to be better prepared for

The genomes of many viruses, including that of the Spanish flu, have been
made publicly available; therefore making them accessible to potential bioterrorists. The genomes of
these pathogens can also be edited and their virulence increased. Fournier et al. showed in 2012 that the
currently circulating H5N1 flu virus can easily mutate to become capable of human-to-human transmission via aerosol
potential future pandemics [4].

droplets [5]. Only five gain-of-function mutations (where a mutation in a gene results in a new and important function not previously seen in the

Given the ease of genome


engineering, it is possible to introduce these five mutations to other strains of influenza that are found only in
water fowl. A potential killer flu could be created for which there is no available vaccination or treatment. This
could be a very powerful bioweapon. Moreover, it may be possible to further engineer a modified virus for
maximum morbidity and mortality by tuning the virulence genes.
virus) were needed for successful transmission in the ferrets which were used as the model of infection.

AFF

UQ

UQ 2nc No Deal/No Pass


No deal and No pass in the US sticking points cant be overcome and emboldened
opposition from GOP and Dems
Jordan Fabian 7/7/2015 Nuclear deal with Iran appears elusive, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/247156-nuclear-deal-with-iran-appears-elusive
White House hopes for a nuclear deal with Iran a top foreign policy achievement for President Obama seemed in
danger of crumbling on Tuesday. Negotiators extended their talks again in Geneva, as Iran made new hard-line
demands, including that the United Nations lifts its arms embargo on the country. It was the second time the
parties blew through a deadline since the original June 30 cutoff, and it raised fresh questions on whether Obamas push
to use diplomacy to cut off Tehrans path to a nuclear weapon can succeed. The White House
acknowledged a number of difficult issues stand in the way of a deal but said the countries involved have
never been closer to reaching a final agreement than we are now. Thats an indication that these talks, at least for now, are worth continuing,

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters. At the same time, Earnest declined to put odds on reaching a deal.
Im not feeling like a betting man today, he said. The parties extended an interim agreement to July 10, allowing the talks
to last into Friday. But Iran is warning it wont sit at the negotiating table indefinitely. Weve come to the end, an Iranian official
told Reuters on Tuesday. Either it happens in the next 48 hours or not. The stakes are high for Obama. Along with his bid to re-establish ties
with Cuba, the Iran deal is a major test of the presidents doctrine of engaging with the U.S.s traditional adversaries to address common interests.
If the talks falter, it would wipe away an elusive legacy-defining foreign policy achievement for Obama, who has grappled with instability in the
Middle East and the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. While Obama is riding the momentum from a series of successes on the domestic
front, on trade, same-sex marriage and healthcare, failure on Iran could blunt his gains. He had secured his domestic legacy in a pretty dramatic
fashion in the last two weeks. Thats always been his No. 1 priority, said James Jeffrey, a distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy and a former ambassador to Iraq under Obama. He realizes his international legacy is a mess. Obama has spent a tremendous
amount of political capital in pursuit of the deal both with Democrats in Congress and the U.S.s traditional allies in Persian Gulf states and
Israel, who fear the deal could embolden Iran in its pursuit of dominance in the Middle East. Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes
acknowledged last week the president is taking on some sacred cows in dealing with hostile regimes. But he said the aim of dealing with Iran is
to avoid being pulled into another conflict in the Middle East while preventing it from becoming a nuclear power. Administration officials told
The Wall Street Journal Monday that they hope a successful Iran deal could open the door to resolving lingering conflicts in Syria and Yemen,
where Iran is involved. But Obama is coming under pressure from lawmakers in both parties not to agree to a
deal at all costs. On Tuesday evening, the president met with Senate Democrats at the White House, where he was expected to sooth members of
his party who are worried about the talks. Influential Democrats, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Ben Cardin
(Md.), have demanded anytime, anywhere inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities. But those conditions are unlikely to be met, making

it

tougher for the administration to prevent a veto-proof majority from voting to disapprove of a
deal, if one is reached. Complicating that effort further is the fact that a deal is unlikely to be reached by Thursday, when the
congressional review period doubles from 30 days to 60 days. That could allow opposition to build. Republicans were
emboldened in their calls for Obama to walk away from the talks following Tuesdays extension.

Deal is deadlocked red lines and arms embargo


Sam Jones 7/10/2015 Iran talks deadline passes amid stalemate,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f85e9dd6-2668-11e5-9c4e-a775d2b173ca.html#axzz3fW0isv8D
A midnight deadline for a nuclear deal between world powers and Iran passed on Thursday, with
US legislation kicking in that will strengthen the position of hawks in Washington who are
opposed to an agreement. Hours earlier, US secretary of state John Kerry warned that the final stage of nuclear
talks was in deadlock. Under US law, if a full accord between the P5+1 the five permanent members of the UN Security Council
plus Germany and Iran was not submitted to Congress for scrutiny by midnight US time on Thursday, the amount of time US lawmakers have
to scrutinise any deal doubles to two months. During that period, the White House is prevented from lifting any economic sanctions on Iran. The
Obama administration has fought hard in recent months to contain Congressional opposition to the diplomatic negotiations. Hawks on both sides
of politics have made repeated attempts to scupper the chances of a nuclear detente with Iran. In Vienna, diplomats had furiously worked to
hammer out the final elements of a deal for nearly two weeks. Their original deadline was June 30. Speaking outside the elegant, neoclassical
faade of the Coburg Palace, the venue for the discussions, hours before the deadline, Mr Kerry said that despite all of the

progress we

have made, some of the tough issues have not been resolved . The US was prepared to walk away, Mr Kerry said, but
negotiations in the final hours of Thursday would still go ahead to try to achieve a breakthrough. We shouldnt get up and leave just because the
clock strikes midnight, he added. Were here because we believe we are making real progress toward a comprehensive deal. But as I have said

many times and as I discussed with President Obama, we are not going to sit at the negotiating table forever. His remarks echoed those made
earlier by Laurent Fabius,

Frances foreign minister. Mr Fabius had said he would remain in Vienna throughout the evening to
are still problems...some difficult issues remain. Those
issues had barely changed in the past few days, diplomats from the P5+1 said in private. Frustration mounted
as the deadlock persisted. Earlier, one western official said that while everyone was still working for
a deal, there were certain red lines which could not be crossed. Foremost among them were the issues of the
try to get a deal done, telling reporters that there

future inspection regime for Irans nuclear facilities to be overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the possible lifting of
the international UN-enforced arms embargo against Iran as part of the sanctions relief package. A particular

complication is the
fact that both Russia and China are open to the arms embargo being relieved, while others in the
P5+1 are not. A European diplomat said it was unconscionable, and could never be agreed to as far as the country he represented in the p5+1
was concerned.

Key issues block deal inspections and arms embargo


Globe and Mail 7/10/2015 Another deadline slips by, but Iran nuclear talks continue,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/iran-says-other-sides-changing-demands-arebogging-down-nuclear-talks/article25409774/
An elusive pact to keep nuclear weapons out of Irans arsenal remained unfinished Friday as yet another

deadline slipped but


talks were to resume in Vienna between the great powers and Tehran. President Barack Obama still hopes to announce
what would be an historic breakthrough and provide a significant foreign policy achievement to his legacy. On 9th day of Iran nuke
talks, cautious Kerry says 'it could go either way' "The president's schedule has been left intentionally fluid to account for the fact that we may
have news out of Vienna," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday. But

fundamental differences on key final


issues intrusive inspections and lifting the arms embargo on Iran and -- could still sink any
deal. Some of the tough issues remain unresolved, John Kerry, the U.S. secretary of state, said only hours before a midnight
deadline. It passed, triggering a 60-day, rather than a 30-day, Congressional review of any pact. That relatively minor additional delay wont
likely wreck any deal but it reflects continuing unease among many Republicans as well as Democrats that Mr. Obama may be giving away too
much in seeking a rapprochement with Tehran. Mr. Kerry and Irans Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif were to meet again Friday at the
Palais Coburg Hotel in the Austrian capital. "We shouldn't get up and leave just because the clocks strikes midnight, Mr. Kerry. We will not
rush, and we will not be rushed. But despite his claim that we are making real progress," Mr. Kerry also hinted that time was finally running out
for Tehran to make concessions on intrusive international inspections, "If the tough decisions dont get made, we are absolutely prepared to call
an end to this," he said. Mr. Kerry said any pact must stand the test of time; lasting for decades but draft versions suggest Tehran will only be
constrained for 10 years. If, in fact, Iran is willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their program where it is right now and, in fact,
rolling back elements of it that currently exist ... if weve got that, and weve got a way of verifying that, theres no other steps we can take that
would give us such assurance that they dont have a nuclear weapon," the president said in March. Earlier in the week, Mr. Obama had told
Democrats that he put the chances of success in reaching a nuclear limitation deal with Tehran at less than 50-50. The major western powers
suspect Irans vast, clandestine and often buried, nuclear enrichment and technology programs are aimed as developing and deploying nuclear
warheads for the nations already sophisticated ballistic missile program. Tehran insists the nuclear program is entirely peaceful and intended only
to develop power generation and medical isotopes. Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany the so-called P5+one group,
referring to the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany have been meeting with Iran for months in on-again, off-again
talks aimed at resolving the dispute. In exchange for any nuclear pact, Iran, crippled by sanctions, wants immediate relief and a path out of the
isolation imposed on it by decades of U.S.-led international pressure. Both

warnings that the talks could still fall apart.

sides voiced a mix of cautious optimism and

UQ domestic No pass
No pass GOP and Dems will not back a last minute deal fear too many US
concessions
Dow Jones Business 7/2/2015 U.S. Lawmakers Stiffen Stance Against Iran Nuclear Deal
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/us-lawmakers-stiffen-stance-against-iran-nuclear-deal-2015070200834#ixzz3etTAC3RD
WASHINGTONDelays

and unresolved disputes in international nuclear negotiations with Iran have


hardened criticism from U.S. lawmakers, pointing to a growing likelihood that the GOPcontrolled Congress will try to undercut a final deal this summer. Republicans, who initially
reacted to the talks with skepticism, have expressed deepening doubts this week that Obama administration
officials will be able to reach an accord with Iran that lawmakers can support. "At the end of the day, they got the bomb in
North Korea because we in Congress were not forceful enough" during the Clinton administration, said House Foreign Affairs Committee
Chairman Ed Royce (R., Calif.), who said lawmakers would insist key demands are met in any final deal with Iran. "If we don't push back, this
will end up in the same set of circumstances." Senior Iranian and American diplomats have been in discussions for nearly two years on a deal
aimed at blocking Iran's path to nuclear weapons in exchange for easing international sanctions. Congress in May passed legislation preventing
President Barack Obama from waiving sanctions on Iran while lawmakers review the final deal and potentially vote on a resolution to approve or
disapprove it. Mr. Obama will be able to implement any final deal with Iran, so long as a veto-proof majority doesn't oppose it.

As

negotiations stretched past their official June 30 deadline this week, top GOP leaders, including Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) urged the White House to
walk away from the talks in a bid to extract a better deal from Iran. The White House "seems intent on muddling toward an
unacceptable deal with Iran," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) wrote in a Politico op-ed this week, warning the administration
that Congress is prepared to defend the public, even if that means "working against a bad agreement that threatens our country and our allies."
Republicans and some Democrats have said their support for any final deal with Iran will hinge on whether Iran agrees to submit to "anywhere,
anytime" inspections, including at military sites, to ensure it can't cover up nuclear activity. Many are concerned about what kind of nuclear
capabilities Iran will have a decade into the deal. Lawmakers also have emphasized that sanctions must be lifted gradually, rather than rolled back
immediately, to keep pressure on Iran to comply with the deal. "We don't want to see a terrorist state flush with cash after sanctions are lifted,"
Mr. Royce said. Under

the legislation passed in May, Congress will have to decide whether to pass a
resolution approving or disapproving the deal. Either measure would need 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles in the
Senate. One option GOP leaders are considering is introducing a resolution of approval, under the assumption that it wouldn't get enough votes to
pass. That could convey the lackluster congressional support more effectively than a resolution of disapproval that passes Congress but is vetoed
by Mr. Obama, a House GOP aide said. Mr. Obama said this week that he was committed to making sure a deal prevents Iran from obtaining a
nuclear weapon. "There are those in Congress and elsewhere who have been skeptical of a diplomatic approach from the beginning, but we would
hope that all members of Congress will weigh any final deal on its merits," National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said on Thursday. "If
we can get to an agreement here, it will be one that we can defend to the public, to the Congress, and to the world." Critics of Mr. Obama's
foreign policy said they were not expecting to see the administration seize a better deal in the final stretch and some said they were prepared to
repudiate it. "Another

week of negotiations at this point is just another week for further U.S.
concessions," Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican running for president, said in a statement. If Mr. Obama "chooses to conclude a
deal that ensures that Iran will be a nuclear threshold state, I am confident that a majority of both houses of Congress will join me in opposing it,
which will lay the foundation for our next president to undo this disaster." The May legislation gives lawmakers 30 days to review any final deal
if one is struck before July 9. If an accord comes after that date, the period would lengthen to 60 days, during which Mr. Obama wouldn't be able
to roll back sanctions. Democrats who have lodged their own reservations about the negotiations with
cautioned that spurning a deal could have negative consequences, including accelerating Iranian work on developing nuclear weapons.

Iran

No pass GOP will reject any agreement


Kristina Peterson 7/2/2015 U.S. Lawmakers Stiffen Stance Against Iran Nuclear Deal, Wall
Street Journal, http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-lawmakers-stiffen-stance-against-iran-nucleardeal-1435875608
WASHINGTONDelays

and unresolved disputes in international nuclear negotiations with Iran have


hardened criticism from U.S. lawmakers, pointing to a growing likelihood that the GOPcontrolled Congress will try to undercut a final deal this summer. Republicans, who initially reacted to the
talks with skepticism, have expressed deepening doubts this week that Obama administration officials will be able to reach an
accord with Iran that lawmakers can support. At the end of the day, they got the bomb in North Korea because we in Congress were not forceful

enough during the Clinton administration, said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R., Calif.), who said lawmakers would
insist key demands are met in any final deal with Iran. If we dont push back, this will end up in the same set of circumstances. Senior Iranian
and American diplomats have been in discussions for nearly two years on a deal aimed at blocking Irans path to nuclear weapons in exchange for
easing international sanctions. Congress in May passed legislation preventing President Barack Obama from waiving sanctions on Iran while
lawmakers review the final deal and potentially vote on a resolution to approve or disapprove it. Mr. Obama will be able to implement any final
deal with Iran, so long as a veto-proof majority doesnt oppose it. As negotiations stretched past their official June 30 deadline this week, top
GOP leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) urged the
White House to walk away from the talks in a bid to extract a better deal from Iran. The

White House seems intent on


muddling toward an unacceptable deal with Iran, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) wrote in a
Politico op-ed this week, warning the administration that Congress is prepared to defend the public, even if
that means working against a bad agreement that threatens our country and our allies. Republicans and some Democrats have said their support
for any final deal with Iran will hinge on whether Iran agrees to submit to anywhere, anytime inspections, including at military sites, to ensure
it cant cover up nuclear activity. Many are concerned about what kind of nuclear capabilities Iran will have a decade into the deal. Lawmakers
also have emphasized that sanctions must be lifted gradually, rather than rolled back immediately, to keep pressure on Iran to comply with the
deal. We dont want to see a terrorist state flush with cash after sanctions are lifted, Mr. Royce said. Under

the legislation passed


in May, Congress will have to decide whether to pass a resolution approving or disapproving the
deal. Either measure would need 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles in the Senate. One option GOP leaders are considering is introducing a
resolution of approval, under the assumption that it wouldnt get enough votes to pass. That could convey the lackluster congressional support
more effectively than a resolution of disapproval that passes Congress but is vetoed by Mr. Obama, a House GOP aide said. Mr. Obama said this
week that he was committed to making sure a deal prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. There are those in Congress and elsewhere
who have been skeptical of a diplomatic approach from the beginning, but we would hope that all members of Congress will weigh any final deal
on its merits, National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said on Thursday. If we can get to an agreement here, it will be one that we can
defend to the public, to the Congress, and to the world. Critics

of Mr. Obamas foreign policy said they were not


expecting to see the administration seize a better deal in the final stretch and some said they were
prepared to repudiate it.

Congressional approval is an uphill battle- Israel lobby and security concerns trump
Reuters 7/4/2015, Despite progress in Iran nuclear talks, dispute over U.N. sanctions persists,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/04/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PD1DP20150704
Doubts among American Jews about peace with Iran and the

influential role of pro-Israel lobby groups in Congress,


are also points of major concern for the Obama administration. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
drew applause from US lawmakers when he spoke against a deal with Iran in a controversial appearance
before Congress earlier this year. In connection with Netanyahu's speech, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC) sent
thousands of its members to lobby individual senators and representatives against a deal. "If the Iranians do not agree to a
regime that provides verification, inspection, monitoring and snap-back sanctions, then we should walk away in my opinion," Martin Indyk, a
senior foreign policy director at Brookings and a former ambassador to Israel, advised members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
recently. Speaking to a meeting of the American Jewish Committee in Washington on June 8, Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken sought to
reassure his audience that Obama has done more than any other US president to support Israel's security and won't concede to Iran in the end.

"The United States continues to believe that no deal is preferable to a bad deal," Blinken went on to say.
Winning US congressional approval is further complicated by a perception that Iran is creating
regional instability in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere. Lawmakers are troubled by the idea that
reaching a nuclear deal would amount to American acceptance of Iran's newfound regional
influence.

Congressional opposition ensures no sustainable deal can pass


Barbara Plett Usher 6/29/2015, Will Congress scupper US nuclear deal with Iran?, BBC News,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33286773
As crunch time nears for an Iran nuclear deal, Washington heavyweights are piling on the
pressure. Bob Corker, the Republican Senator who has led the charge for Congressional oversight, has written to the president, warning
against the erosion of red lines. Five of Barack Obama's top former Iran advisors have signed an open letter
expressing concern that the deal might lack sufficient safeguards to deter Iran from building a nuclear bomb. And
the administration has intensified briefings with lawmakers amid a series of media leaks suggesting concessions in the negotiations. These
interventions add to the challenge of the end game, and raise questions about the sustainability

and credibility of whatever it might produce. Partisan politics Much of the ongoing opposition on
Capitol Hill is about support for Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in effect appealed to Congress to block a
deal. And much of it is about partisan Republican politics targeting the foreign policy of a Democratic president. But
Democrats also share some Republican concerns about the negotiations and whether a viable
deal is possible with an old enemy still deeply distrusted.

UQ international no pass
No breakthrough
BBC News 7/9/2015 Iran nuclear: US 'will not be rushed over deal' Kerry,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33457805
The White House has said that it is unlikely that the talks will go on for many more weeks. A 30 June
deadline imposed by both sides has already been missed. The P5+1 and Iran are still believed to differ in three key
areas - international inspections of Iran's non-nuclear sites, sanctions, and how Iran's compliance
will be verified. Iran also wants a UN Security Council arms embargo to be scrapped - something the US
has ruled out. World powers want to be satisfied that Iran is neither trying to develop a nuclear bomb, nor has the capability to do so in
under at least a year. Iran insists its nuclear programme is for purely peaceful purposes. null The two sides have already overrun self-imposed
deadlines in pursuit of a final deal on Iran's nuclear programme If Congress rejects the deal, President Barack Obama can use his power of veto,
but Congress can still overturn this. An extended review could help opposition to a deal build in the Republican-controlled legislature. Under an
interim accord, Iran and the P5+1 agreed that crippling sanctions would be eased in return for curbs on Iran's nuclear programme. Both

sides
at the Vienna talks said they hoped for progress on Thursday, though there has been little concrete sign of a
breakthrough.

No Deal key issues remain unresolved. Iran unwilling to bend and US beginning to
back away from talks
Carol Morello and Karen DeYoung 7/8/2015 (diplomatic correspondent for The Washington
Post AND associate editor and senior national security correspondent for the Washington Post)
U.S. and Iran resume talks after another deadline lapses. The Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-and-iran-resume-talks-afteranother-deadline-lapses/2015/07/08/ac7f5d8f-d57b-4194-a3e2-6cdd08486329_story.html?
tid=hpModule_04941f10-8a79-11e2-98d9-3012c1cd8d1e
VIENNA The Iran nuclear talks puttered along Wednesday as Iranian and U.S. negotiators met a day after a deadline was
pushed back to allow them to continue to seek a final deal to restrict Irans nuclear program and lift sanctions against the country. The delay in
reaching a comprehensive agreement has assured an extension to 60 days the period Congress will have to review any agreement before President
Obama can act to waive sanctions. As

the talks have bogged down, foreign ministers from five countries negotiating
alongside the United States all left Vienna after it became clear no deal would be reached by
Tuesdays deadline a date already extended by a week. Though several of the envoys met with Iranians separately before departing,
Iran never joined a scheduled meeting Tuesday with all the diplomats of the group known as the P5+1. The reasons for the cancelled meeting
remain unclear, but the negotiators are expected to meet when foreign ministers return late Wednesday or Thursday in advance of the new, Friday
deadline. In their absence, the negotiating teams from the United States and Iran remained in the Austrian capital, and kept trying to narrow their
differences. Wendy Sherman, the State Departments undersecretary for political affairs who has been the lead negotiator, and Robert Malley, an
Obama adviser, met Wednesday morning with Irans two deputy foreign ministers Abbas Araghchi and Majid Takht Ravanchi. No details of
their discussions were immediately available, and television cameras were not even allowed in to show them sitting around a table before the
meeting began. Secretary of State John F. Kerry, meanwhile, met with other Americans on his negotiating team. It was unclear whether he would
meet later in the day with his counterpart, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. By

all accounts, the two sides are


snagged on some fundamental issues. American officials in particular have
gone out of their way to damp optimistic speculation, cautioning that a year and a half of
intense talks still could end in failure to secure a deal. An unnamed Iranian diplomat at the talks told the Iranian Student News
Agency that divisions remain on three key issues: sanctions, the phrasing of resolutions at the United
Nations and the degree to which Iran can continue its nuclear research in areas like advanced uraniumenriching centrifuges for what Iran insists are non-military purposes. The diplomats words suggested that Iran is still unwilling to
meet some key demands from the other side. Iran has presented constructive solutions to overcome the remaining
differences, he told ISNA, adding, We will not show flexibility regarding our red lines.
closer than ever, but remain

UQ international no pass arms embargo


Deal highly unlikely Arms Embargo
Carol Morello 7/9/2015 (diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, covering the State
Department) Kerry says tough issues remain unresolved at Iran nuclear talks, The Washington
Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iran-nuclear-talks-pick-up-speedas-another-deadline-looms/2015/07/09/261166ba-746d-4563-a236-7e3fcfa47f87_story.html
VIENNA Secretary of State John F. Kerry

said Thursday that some tough issues remain unresolved in nuclear talks
with Iran and warned that the negotiations are not open-ended. The United States, he said, is prepared
to walk away from the talks if hard decisions facing Iran are not made soon. Speaking to reporters as talks continued between Iran and six
world powers, including the United States, Kerry said he had conferred Wednesday night with President Obama, who he said made it
clear to him that the negotiations would have to end without a deal if the remaining differences
cannot be bridged. We are not going to sit at the negotiating table forever, Kerry said. Despite all of the progress that we
have made and its real some of the tough issues remain unresolved. We know that difficult decisions dont become
easier over time. And in one way or another, those decisions must be taken very soon. He did not elaborate on what the outstanding issues are.
Asked how long he is willing to stay in Vienna to get a deal with Iran, Kerry said: This is not open-ended. President Obama made it very clear to
me last night, you cant wait forever for the decision to be made. ... If the tough decisions dont get made, we are absolutely prepared to call an
end to this process. Kerry then hobbled away on crutches without answering further questions. Kerry spoke as diplomats held a flurry of backto-back meetings to try to finish their work before a looming deadline. The official deadline, twice extended in the last two weeks, is Friday. But
several diplomats indicated they are mindful of the Obama administrations desire to submit a completed deal to Congress by the end of the day
Thursday. That would avoid triggering provisions that give lawmakers 60 days, instead of 30, to review the details. With that unofficial deadline
in mind, the six countries negotiating with Iran have set a goal of getting an agreement by midnight in Vienna, which is six hours ahead of
Washington. However, some diplomats said it was doubtful that an agreement could be reached that quickly. The White House released a
statement saying President Obama had held a secure video conference with Kerry and the U.S. negotiating team. In the call, Obama provided
guidance related to our ongoing efforts to achieve a good deal between the P5+1 and Iran that meets our requirements. [Tempers flare at Iran
nuclear talks] Diplomats from the P5+1 which refers to the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany met Thursday
morning for a little over an hour, as some of the foreign ministers who had left the Austrian capital on Tuesday returned to join the talks. Kerry
followed that up with a series of separate meetings with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and their counterparts from Britain and
France. The

sense of urgency suggests the United States and its partners are reiterating what they have said publicly, that the
time for Iran to make a deal with them is quickly running out. As the air bristled with expectation around the deluxe
Coburg Palace Hotel where the talks are being held, every hour seemed to fuel new rumors that a deal was finally at hand, or the talks were still
deadlocked. I am not ruling anything out, said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, speaking at a conference of emerging nations
in the Russian city of Ufa. It is possible that the agreement will be reached in the next few hours. If a political decision is made by a number of
members in the six-nation team and Iran, everything could happen very quickly, Ryabkov added. Separately, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and
Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Irans Atomic Energy Organization, held a meeting, a by-now routine daily discussion between the two nuclear
physicists who are charged with ironing out the technical details in any agreement that would place curbs on Irans nuclear program in exchange
for sanctions relief. Hopefully today is the last day, Salehi told reporters. Were going to resolve the last issues if we can, Moniz added.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, also speaking in Ufa, said he expected to return to Vienna soon for what he anticipates will be the
approval of a deal with Iran. Hopefully, this will be a truly final meeting where we will be able to give final approval to certain nuances rather
than a meeting where some will try to reopen agreements of the previous stage, he told reporters. Alas, our contacts have not been spared such
attempts, which do not help but drag us back and delay the achievement of final agreements. Abbas Araghchi, a deputy foreign minister taking
part in the negotiations, told Iranian TV that only a handful of key issues remain, including the timetable under which Iran would allow
international inspectors to visit nuclear sites while the United Nations, the United States and the European Union prepare to lift sanctions. He also
said the

two sides are still discussing a key Iranian demand, the lifting of a U.N. embargo on conventional
arms sales to Iran. The United States has opposed dropping that ban.

Talks deadlocked arms embargo


Trade Arabia 7/9/2015 Iran deal close; impasse over arms persists,
http://www.tradearabia.com/news/INTNEWS_285992.html
Iran and six world powers were close to an historic nuclear agreement on Thursday that could resolve a more than 12-year dispute
over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but they remained deadlocked on the issue of Iranian arms and missile trade.
Over the past two weeks, Iran, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China have twice extended a deadline for completing a
long-term deal under which Tehran would curb sensitive nuclear activities for more than a decade in exchange for sanctions relief. US Energy
Secretary Ernest Moniz and Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi were meeting on Thursday morning. Salehi told reporters, "Hopefully today is
the last day." Moniz added: "We're going to resolve the last issues, if we can." The latest extension of the talks to Friday left open the possibility
an agreement would not arrive in time to secure a 30-day review period by the Republican-dominated US Congress. If a deal is sent to Congress

after July 9 - Thursday - the period grows to 60 days, increasing the chance that the deal could unravel. US Secretary of State John Kerry and
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif have been meeting daily for two weeks to overcome the last remaining obstacles to a deal.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and his British and German counterparts have also rejoined the negotiations. The White House said
President Barack Obama and his national security team held a video conference on Wednesday with Kerry, Moniz and the US negotiating team in
Vienna. "The President reviewed the progress of negotiations to date, and provided guidance related to our ongoing efforts to achieve a good deal
between the P5+1 and Iran that meets our requirements," the White House said in a statement. Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said
the main text of the agreement, as well as five technical annexes, were "around 96 percent complete." While

the lifting of sanctions


was largely agreed, Araqchi said Tehran's demand for an end to the U.N. Security Council arms
embargo was among the most contentious unresolved points. Tehran has powerful support on this issue from
Russia, one of the six nations negotiating with Iran - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. Speaking at a summit of the
BRICS countries - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - in Ufa, Russia, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the United
Nations arms embargo should be among the first sanctions lifted if there is a nuclear deal. "We are calling for lifting the embargo as soon as
possible and we will support the choices that Iran's negotiators make," Lavrov said. MISSILE SALES Earlier this week, a senior Western
diplomat said that despite Russia's and China's known opposition to the arms embargo and sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile programme, they
had decided not to break ranks with the West on the issue. The

United States and its European allies are determined


to keep the arms and missile sanctions in place in the event of a nuclear deal with Iran. Tehran says the missile
and arms restrictions are unrelated to the nuclear talks and should therefore be terminated if a
nuclear agreement is struck.

UQ international no pass ballistic missile


No deal ballistic missiles
Reuters 7/6/2015 Iran demands end to U.N. missile sanctions, West refuses: envoys,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/06/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PF0HG20150706
A dispute over U.N. sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program and a broader arms embargo
were among issues holding up a nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers on Monday, the day before their latest
self-imposed deadline. "The Iranians want the ballistic missile sanctions lifted. They say there is no
reason to connect it with the nuclear issue, a view that is difficult to accept," one Western official told
Reuters. "There's no appetite for that on our part." Iranian and other Western officials confirmed this view. The
foreign ministers of the six powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - met with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad
Mohamed Zarif on Monday to try to strike a deal with Iran by Tuesday night. "The Western side insists that not only should it (Iran's ballistic
missile program) remain under sanctions, but that Iran should suspend its program as well," an Iranian official said. "But Iran is insisting on its
rights and says all the sanctions, including on the ballistic missiles, should be lifted when the U.N. sanctions are lifted." Separately, a senior
Iranian official told reporters in Vienna on condition of anonymity that Tehran wanted a United Nations arms embargo terminated as well. The
West wants to keep the arms embargo in place and a senior Western diplomat said a removal was "out of the question". Alireza Miryousefi, a
press officer for the Iranian delegation, said: "This is an issue under discussion for quite some time. But it's not true that it's holding up
negotiations." The deal under discussion is aimed at curbing Tehran's most sensitive nuclear work for a decade or more, in exchange for relief
from sanctions that have slashed Iran's oil exports and crippled its economy. The United States and its allies fear Iran is using its civilian nuclear
program as a cover to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Iran says its program is peaceful. An agreement would be the most important
milestone in decades towards alleviating hostility between the United States and Iran, enemies since Iranian revolutionaries captured 52 hostages
in the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979. It could also reduce the odds of any military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, something Washington
has refused to rule out, and the possibility of a wider war in the Middle East, where conflicts already rage in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. "TRYING
HARD" Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told reporters on Monday that "some differences remain
and we are trying and working hard". If there is a nuclear deal, it will include a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that, once adopted, would
terminate all U.N. nuclear-related sanctions while simultaneously re-imposing other existing restrictions on Iran. The six powers argue that
removing those measures could further destabilize the region. The negotiations are a major initiative both for the administration of U.S. President
Barack Obama and for Iran's pragmatic elected president, Hassan Rouhani, both of whom face scepticism from powerful hardliners at home.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday that an agreement was possible this week if Iran made "hard choices", but that
the United States was also ready to walk away from a deal it considered inadequate.

No deal ballistic missile and arms embargo sanctions black deal


The Globe and Mail 7/6/2015 Dispute over UN missile sanctions on Iran delays nuclear
deal, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/dispute-over-un-missile-sanctions-on-iranholds-up-deal/article25313081/
A dispute over UN sanctions on Irans ballistic missile program and a broader arms embargo
were among issues holding up a nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers on Monday, the day before their latest selfimposed deadline. The Iranians want the ballistic missile sanctions lifted. They say there is no reason to connect it
with the nuclear issue, a view that is difficult to accept, one Western official told Reuters. Theres no appetite for that on our part. Iranian and
other Western officials confirmed this view as the foreign ministers of the six powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United
States - gathered in Vienna to try to strike a deal with Iran by Tuesday night. The

Western side insists that not only should it

[ballistic

missiles] remain under sanctions, but that Iran should suspend its program as well, an Iranian official said. But
Iran is insisting on its rights and says all the sanctions, including on the ballistic missiles, should be lifted when the UN
sanctions are lifted. Separately, a senior Iranian official told reporters in Vienna on condition of anonymity that Tehran
wanted a United Nations arms embargo terminated as well. The West wants to keep the arms
embargo in place and a senior Western diplomat said a removal was out of the question.

Ballistic missile debate dooms the deal


TribLive 7/6/2015 Sanctions, embargo among sticking points in nuclear deal with Iran,
http://triblive.com/usworld/world/8691994-74/nuclear-iran-deal#ixzz3fDprCBZT
VIENNA A dispute

over U.N. sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program and a broader arms embargo were

among issues holding

up a nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers Monday, the day before their latest self-imposed
deadline. The Iranians want the ballistic missile sanctions lifted. They say there is no reason to connect it with the
nuclear issue, a view that is difficult to accept, one Western official said. There's no appetite for that on our
part. Iranian and other Western officials confirmed this view. The foreign ministers of the six powers Britain, China, France, Germany,
Russia and the United States met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohamed Javad Zarif and were expected to meet again soon to try to strike a
deal by Tuesday night. Separately, a senior Iranian official said in Vienna on condition of anonymity that Tehran wanted a United Nations arms
embargo terminated as well. A senior Western diplomat said a removal was out of the question. The deal
under discussion is aimed at curbing Tehran's most sensitive nuclear work for a decade or more, in exchange for relief from sanctions that have
slashed Iran's oil exports and crippled its economy. The United States and its allies fear Iran is using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to
develop a nuclear weapons capability. Iran says its program is peaceful.

UQ international no pass inspections


No deal inspections
Karen DeYoung 7/4/2015 (associate editor and senior national security correspondent for the
Washington Post) Key issue in Iran nuclear talks could be resolved within months, Washington
Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/key-issue-in-iran-nuclear-talks-could-be-resolvedwithin-months/2015/07/04/ec489992-ce2c-4940-9767-bb7657b7d0e5_story.html
Purported leaks

out of the highly-secret negotiations, and the responses they have drawn from critics in both the United States and
Iran, have repeatedly plagued the talks. Among other things, critics have focused on Irans insistence that sanctions be lifted with the
completion of the agreement. U.S. officials have suggested that question may be addressed by delaying the actual implementation date of
provisions of the accord until verification of Iranian compliance on the nuclear side. Verification

issues have been


complicated by public statements in which Iran has repeatedly said inspectors will not be allowed
to visit Iranian military facilities or to interview nuclear scientists. IAEA head Amano said that
progress ... on the way forward was made in his meeting with Rouhani. Inspection of military facilities is considered
key to determining not only whether Iran is trying to cheat on a deal, but also the extent of its previous work on a nuclear weapon. Iran denies its
nuclear program has been for any purpose other than energy production. Shortly

after Amanos comments, a senior


Iranian official in Tehran repeated that military visits and scientist interviews would not be
permitted. "Our red lines include permission for visiting the military centers and interview with
nuclear scientists as well as the points explicitly stated by Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khameinei,
Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the parliamentary national security commission, told Irans Fars News agency Saturday.

UQ international no pass sanctions


Deal unlikely no agreement on UN sanctions and no approval from ministers-Iran
is not on board
Reuters 7/4/2015, Despite progress in Iran nuclear talks, dispute over U.N. sanctions persists,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/04/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PD1DP20150704
Iran and world powers made progress on future sanctions relief for Iran in marathon nuclear talks on Saturday, but remained
divided on issues such as lifting United Nations sanctions and the development of advanced centrifuges. Diplomats
close to the negotiations said they had tentative agreement on a mechanism for suspending U.S. and European Union sanctions on Iran. But the
six powers had yet to agree on a United Nations Security Council resolution that would lift U.N.
sanctions and establish a means of re-imposing them in case of Iranian non-compliance with a future agreement. "We still haven't
sorted a Security Council resolution," a diplomat close to the talks told Reuters. "We don't have Iran on board
yet." Senior Iranian and Western diplomats echoed the remarks. Some of the toughest disputes,
including the question of easing U.N. sanctions, were likely to be left for foreign ministers when they arrived in the Austrian
capital on Sunday, officials said. "Even if and when issues get resolved at an experts level, there will remain
some open issues that can only be decided by ministers," a senior U.S. official told reporters.

THUMPERS

AFF thumpers cuba


Cuba thumps
Jordain Carney 7/3/2015 Obama heads for showdown over Cuba embassy, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/246817-obama-heads-for-showdown-over-cubaembassy
President Obama

is heading for a showdown with Congress after announcing plans to reopen the
U.S. embassy in Cuba. The administration's move is part of a months-long discussion between
the two countries to normalize relations that could hand Obama a needed foreign policy win, but
only if he can get lawmakers on board. But that could be an impossible task. While the
administration can reopen the embassy without Congress signing off, theyll need lawmakers to
help approve an ambassador, fund the embassy, and lift a decades-old embargo. Congressional
Republicans, and some Democrats, are already plotting to block the administrations efforts,
suggesting that Obama is going easy on a dictatorial regime. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) called the decision to
reopen the embassy the latest example of Obamas appeasement of dictators. The Arkansas Republican is planning to
work with his Senate colleagues to block funding for an embassy and vote against a potential
ambassador until there is real, fundamental change that gives hope to the oppressed people of
Cuba. He could find an ally across the aisle in Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who has been a vocal critic of Obamas
policy. The Cuban-American senator said Obamas decision is not in our national interest. An already one-sided deal that benefits the Cuban
regime is becoming all the more lopsided, he added. "The message is democracy and human rights take a back seat to a legacy initiative.

Across the Capitol, Republican leadership also opposes Obamas Cuba moves, with House Speaker John
Boehner (R-Ohio) saying that relations with the Castro regime should not be revisited, let alone normalized, until Cubans enjoy freedom and
not one second sooner. The congressional

opposition is hardly new. House lawmakers agreed in a 247-176


vote last month to keep the current restrictions on Americans wanting to travel to Cuba in place,
effectively blocking rules issued earlier this year to make traveling easier." The House is also using its spending bills to
try to torpedo Obamas efforts. A bill to fund the State Department would prohibit funds from being used to build a new embassy.
.

AFF thumpers domestic agenda


Renewed domestic focus thumps the DA
Carol Lee 7/2/2015 White House Gears Up for Domestic-Policy Offensive, Wall Street
Journal, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/02/white-house-gears-up-for-domestic-policyoffensive/
While President Barack Obamas top foreign-policy initiativesparticularly on Cuba, trade and Iranhave
dominated the headlines lately, the White House is gearing up for a domestic policy push thats largely
been under the radar. The effort is designed both to burnish Mr. Obamas domestic-policy legacy and to try to
make headway on issues where progress has lagged. Mr. Obama has already begun to showcase the strategy. The
White House announced this week a proposal to expand overtime pay to about five million more Americans, and on
Wednesday Mr. Obama traveled to Tennessee to highlight his health-care law in the wake of last weeks Supreme Court ruling that upheld federal
subsidies to millions of low-income Americans. In

coming weeks, the White House is expected to roll out more


executive orders, perhaps on gun safety. And top White House officials are hoping to capitalize on their successful
collaboration with congressional Republicans on trade to advance a business-tax overhaul and transportation
initiatives targeted at shoring up the countrys infrastructure. Changes to the criminal justice system are also at the
top of the presidents domestic wish list. He telegraphed his renewed domestic focus this week during
a news conference with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. The list is long, Mr. Obama said. What were going to do is just
keep on hammering away at all the issues that I think are going to have an impact on the American
people. Some of them will be left undone. But were going to try to make progress on every single one of them. The renewed domestic
offensive, coupled with an aggressive front on foreign-policy issues, are a reflection of a president who is, as former senior White House adviser
David Axelrod recently told The Wall Street Journal, feeling the pressures of time. The challenge for Mr. Obama will be in the places where his
domestic and foreign policy agendas intersect. The president has limited political capital in Congress. And he needs lawmakers to backor at least
not amass a veto-proof majority opposition toa nuclear deal with Iran if one is finalized in coming days. Hell also need to generate enough
support among Republican and Democratic lawmakers for lifting the embargo on Cuba, which on Wednesday he again called on Congress to do
as he announced finalized plans to open an American embassy in Havana. Its

unclear if Mr. Obama will also be able to


persuade Congress to act on issues such as infrastructure, business taxes and the criminal justice
system. But White House officials have been instructed to make a strong effort. We are going to squeeze
every last ounce of progress that we can make when I have the privilegeas long as I have the privilege of holding this office, Mr. Obama said
Tuesday.

Domestic agenda drains PC


Anita Kumar 6/30/2015 Obama: I might walk away from Iran deal,
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/whitehouse/article25839220.html#storylink=cpy
Obama said that last week was a good week which some analysts are calling his best week as
president when the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage,
Congress passed hard-fought trade legislation and he delivered a heartfelt eulogy for a slain
pastor in Charleston. Last week was gratifying, he said. He said he plans to use his political
capital to work with Congress to rebuild aging infrastructure, change the criminal justice system
and boost job training. I might see if we can make next week even better.

IMPACT

A2 Deal Solves Relations


Deal cant solve relations Tehrans anti-Israeli policy makes it impossible to
cooperate
Wilner 2014 Washington bureau chief for JP, 11-9 (Michael, Obama casts distance from Iran
and doubt on a nuclear deal, The Jeruslium Post, Nov 9, 2014, http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Obama-casts-distance-from-Iran-and-doubt-on-a-nuclear-deal-381263
WASHINGTON -- US President Barack Obama

cast doubt on whether negotiators in Vienna will succeed in


clinching a comprehensive agreement with Iran over its nuclear program in a television interview
aired on Sunday. Praising Iran's performance under the eight-month old interim agreement, the Joint Plan of Action, which froze the
crisis between Iran and world powers, Obama said the US seeks a "verifiable," lock-tight" deal that makes
sure "they don't get a nuclear weapon." "The question now is: Are we going to be able to close this final gap so that they
can re-enter the international community, sanctions can be slowly reduced, and we have verifiable, lock-tight assurances that they can't develop a

Javad Zarif in Muscat,


toward a deadline terminating talks on November 24.
"There's still a big gap," he said. "We may not be able to get there." Speaking to Bob Schieffer of CBS News,
the president also put distance between himself and Iran's leadership, days after a report alleged
he sent a letter to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. "Iran has influence over Shia,
both in Syria and in Iraq," he said, acknowledging shared interest in the defeat of Islamic State in both countries. He declined to
comment on the existence of a letter to the Ayatollah, but insisted the US would not cooperate militarily with Iran over the extremist threat. " We
are not connecting in any way" the nuclear negotiations with discussions over Islamic State, he
continued. Despite diplomatic efforts on two fronts breaking historic silence between the two capitals a
slew of policies out of Tehran prevent the US and Iran from becoming "true allies,"
including Iran's "anti-Israeli threats and behavior," the president said. Obama spoke with Schieffer in the Oval
nuclear weapon," Obama said. US Secretary of State John Kerry met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad
Oman for those negotiations on Sunday, working

Office marking the sixtieth anniversary of "Face the Nation."

A2 Escalation
Mutual interest checks any escalationthreats are transparent bluffs
Fettweis 7 Asst Prof Poli Sci Tulane, Asst Prof National Security Affairs US Naval War
College (Christopher, On the Consequences of Failure in Iraq, Survival, Vol. 49, Iss. 4,
December, p. 83 98)
Without the US presence, a second argument goes, nothing would prevent Sunni-Shia violence
from sweeping into every country where the religious divide exists. A Sunni bloc with centres in
Riyadh and Cairo might face a Shia bloc headquartered in Tehran, both of which would face
enormous pressure from their own people to fight proxy wars across the region. In addition to
intra-Muslim civil war, cross-border warfare could not be ruled out. Jordan might be the first to
send troops into Iraq to secure its own border; once the dam breaks, Iran, Turkey, Syria and
Saudi Arabia might follow suit. The Middle East has no shortage of rivalries, any of which might
descend into direct conflict after a destabilising US withdrawal. In the worst case, Iran might
emerge as the regional hegemon, able to bully and blackmail its neighbours with its new nuclear
arsenal. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would soon demand suitable deterrents of their own, and a
nuclear arms race would envelop the region. Once again, however, none of these outcomes is
particularly likely. Wider war No matter what the outcome in Iraq, the region is not likely to devolve into
chaos. Although it might seem counter-intuitive, by most traditional measures the Middle East is very stable.
Continuous, uninterrupted governance is the norm, not the exception; most Middle East regimes have
been in power for decades. Its monarchies, from Morocco to Jordan to every Gulf state, have generally been in
power since these countries gained independence. In Egypt Hosni Mubarak has ruled for almost three decades, and
Muammar Gadhafi in Libya for almost four. The region's autocrats have been more likely to die quiet, natural deaths
than meet the hangman or post-coup firing squads. Saddam's rather unpredictable regime, which attacked its neighbours
twice, was one of the few exceptions to this pattern of stability, and he met an end unusual for the modern Middle East. Its
regimes have survived potentially destabilising shocks before, and they would be likely to do so
again. The region actually experiences very little cross-border warfare, and even less since the end of the Cold War.
Saddam again provided an exception, as did the Israelis, with their adventures in Lebanon. Israel fought four wars with neighbouring
states in the first 25 years of its existence, but none in the 34 years since. Vicious civil wars that once engulfed
Lebanon and Algeria have gone quiet, and its ethnic conflicts do not make the region particularly unique. The biggest risk of
an American withdrawal is intensified civil war in Iraq rather than regional conflagration. Iraq's neighbours will likely not prove
eager to fight each other to determine who gets to be the next country to spend itself into penury propping up an unpopular puppet
regime next door. As much as the Saudis and Iranians may threaten to intervene on behalf of their co-religionists,
they have shown no eagerness to replace the counter-insurgency role that American troops play today. If the
United States, with its remarkable military and unlimited resources, could not bring about its desired solutions in Iraq, why would any other
country think it could do so?17 Common

interest, not the presence of the US military, provides the ultimate foundation for
stability. All ruling regimes in the Middle East share a common (and understandable) fear of instability. It is
the interest of every actor - the Iraqis, their neighbours and the rest of the world - to see a stable, functioning
government emerge in Iraq. If the United States were to withdraw, increased regional cooperation to address that
common interest is far more likely than outright warfare

No Prolif 2ac
No arms race or war
Layne 9 Intl Affairs Prof, Texas A&M, Visiting Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies, Cato
Institute (Christopher, Americas Middle East grand strategy after Iraq, Review of International
Studies 35, Cambridge Journals)
Of course, hard-line US neoconservatives reject this approach and argue that a nuclear-armed Iran would have three bad consequences: there
could be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East; Iran might supply nuclear weapons to terrorists; and Tehran could use its nuclear weapons to
blackmail other states in the region, or to engage in aggression. Each of these scenarios, however, is improbable.24 A nuclear

Iran will
not touch off a proliferation snowball in the Middle East. Israel, of course, already is a nuclear power. The other three states that might be
tempted to go for a nuclear weapons capability are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. However, each of these states would be
under strong pressure not to do so, and Saudi Arabia lacks the industrial and engineering capabilities to develop nuclear
weapons indigenously. Notwithstanding the Bush administrations hyperbolic rhetoric, Iran is not going to give nuclear weapons
to terrorists. This is not to deny Tehrans close links to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. However, there are good reasons that states
even those that have ties to terrorists draw the line at giving them nuclear weapons (or other WMD): if the terrorists were to use these weapons

weapons could be traced back to the donor state, which would be at risk of
annihilation by an American retaliatory strike.25 Irans leaders have too much at stake to run this risk. Even if one believes the
administrations claims that rogue state leaders are indifferent to the fate of their populations, they do care very much about the survival
against the US or its allies, the

of their regimes, which means that they can be deterred. For the same reason, Irans possession of nuclear weapons will not invest Tehran with
options to attack, or intimidate its neighbours. Israels security with respect to Iran is guaranteed by its own formidable nuclear deterrent
capabilities. By the same token, just as it did in Europe during the Cold War, the US can extend its own deterrence umbrella to protect its clients
in the region Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Turkey. American

security guarantees not only will dissuade Iran from

acting recklessly, but also restrain proliferation by negating the incentives for states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to acquire their own
nuclear weapons. Given the overwhelming US advantage in both nuclear and conventional military capabilities, Iran is not going to
risk national suicide by challenging Americas security commitments in the region. In short, while a nuclear-armed Iran hardly
is desirable, neither is it intolerable, because it could be contained and deterred successfully by the US.

No Iran prolifthey lack the capability and cash


Lambers 14 (William Lambers, graduate of the College of Mount St. Joseph in Ohio, writer for
The Huffington Post, Nuclear Peace Emerging in the Middle East, 1-2-14,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-lambers/nuclear-peace-middle-east_b_4485847.html)
Last year ended with some momentum toward ending the standoff over Iran's nuclear program. If
a comprehensive agreement can be forged this year, it will be a major step toward freeing the
world of the costly and dangerous burden of nuclear weapons. Iran has suffered from sanctions
for failing to live up to obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. A report from the
International Federation of Human Rights stated the consequences for the Iranian people:
"Unemployment is on the rise, inflation is at unprecedented levels and most people have to
combine several jobs because the minimum wage is insufficient to counterbalance inflation.
Iran's population is experiencing an increasing income gap between rich and poor." Iran cannot
afford to be diverting precious resources to the pursuit of nuclear weapons. As President
Obama said, "Iran must know that security and prosperity will never come through the pursuit of
nuclear weapons -- it must be reached through fully verifiable agreements that make Iran's
pursuit of nuclear weapons impossible."

Even if Iran gets the bomb, it wont escalate to an arms race


Daniel Larison 14, senior editor at the American Conservative, PhD in History from the Univ
of Chicago, citing Johan Bergenas, deputy director of the Managing Across Boundaries initiative
at the Stimson Center, May 22 2014, Iran and the Nuclear Domino Myth,
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/iran-and-the-nuclear-domino-myth/

Matthew Kroenig continues his never-ending series of articles promoting war with Iran. Im not
all that interested in his argument about Obama, but I wanted to respond to some assertions that
he makes about what would happen after Iran acquired nuclear weapons. Kroenig writes:
Nuclear weapons in Iran would spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Tehran would
probably export do-it-yourself atomic bomb kits to other countries around the world. And the
global nonproliferation regime would collapse as it became clear that the international
community lacked the resolve to stop the spread of the worlds most dangerous weapons. All of
these claims are wrong. Johan Bergenas specifically addressed two of these claims in a 2010
article for Foreign Affairs. He rejected the idea that the nonproliferation regime would collapse
because of a nuclear-armed Iran. On the NPT itself, he said: Its more than 180 committed parties
are unlikely to allow Irans nuclear program to demolish an institution that is and has been for
four decades the foundation of nonproliferation efforts. As for the fear of a nuclear domino
effect, Bergenas cites past experience with new nuclear-weapons states to show this idea to be
another myth: But theres one problem with this nuclear domino scenario: the historical
record does not support it. Since the dawn of the nuclear age, many have feared rapid and
widespread nuclear proliferation; 65 years later, only nine countries have developed nuclear
weapons. Notably, Israels acquisition of nuclear weapons has not prompted any of its neighbors
to do likewise, nor has North Koreas nuclear tests led to further proliferation in East Asia. If a
state is determined to build nuclear weapons, the nonproliferation regime cannot prevent this
from happening, but the strength of that regime is that is gives the vast majority of states
incentives not to pursue such weapons. He continues: Predictions of catastrophic consequences
resulting from a nuclear Iran are not only wrong but counterproductive. The assertion that the
widespread proliferation is unavoidable could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The myth of a
nuclear domino effect creates an excuse for other Middle Eastern countries expecting that
their neighbors will be nuclear

No Prolif 1ar
No arms race or war from Iran prolifother states have incentives not to weaponized, and
Iran will act in their self-interestmeans they wont give weapons to terrorists or attack
Israel because it could be traced backthats Layne
No prolif anywayIran lacks the technical capabilities and cash to fund full breakout
capabilitythats Lambers

Prolif is extremely slow and even if they get one, theyll act rationally
Eugene Robinson 2012, Gulf War III Isnt an Option, WASHINGTON POST, 223--12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gulf-war-iii-isnt-anoption/2012/02/23/gIQAlwMZWR_story.html
Iran does
not yet have the ability to build a nuclear weapon and unclear whether the Iranian government, if
and when it does achieve that capability, will take that final provocative step. Covert operations believed to have been carried
Obviously, Iranian officials are lying when they say that their nuclear program is entirely for peaceful purposes. But it is clear that

out by Israeli intelligence agents, perhaps with U.S. assistance a diabolically clever computer virus that crippled many of Irans enrichment
centrifuges, along with the targeted assassinations of key Iranian scientists have significantly slowed Irans progress toward being able to
make a bomb. It is reasonable to assume that such actions, and their effectiveness, will continue. But lets also assume that sabotage, in the end,
will not be enough to keep Iran from reaching its goal. What then? First, it seems to me, you have to figure out why the Iranian regime has gone
to the trouble and expense of mounting a nuclear program in the first place. If you string together enough examples of the apocalyptic, antiSemitic rhetorical venom that spews regularly from both religious and secular authorities in Iran, you might believe that as soon as the first
nuclear-tipped missile came off the assembly line it would be sent hurtling toward Israel. But if you look at the way the regime actually
behaves, youd have to conclude otherwise. The Iranian government acts in ways that are inimical to the interests of Israel, the United States, our
Western allies and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. But it does

not act in ways that are inherently irrational. The


regime wants Iran to be able to dominate the region as it did in the days of the Persian Empire. Like all dictatorial
governments, it also wants to perpetuate its hold on power. Achieving nuclear capability would serve both these goals; a suicidal attack
against Israel or the United States would serve neither. It is worth mentioning that the regimes superpower ambitions were greatly
furthered by the U.S. decision to go to war against Iraq, thus eliminating Irans chief rival. When Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons, he used
them on his own people and against Iran, not against the West. Its also worth mentioning that Iranian leaders might look at Iraq and Libya, which
abandoned their nuclear programs, and then look at North Korea, which did not, and conclude logically that the best way for a rogue
government to survive is to make a bomb. My guess is that the Iranians might stop short of actually testing a nuclear device. Simply

letting

the world know theyre able to make one would give them the added clout they seek.

No Iran threat or prolif


Carpenter 2012 (Ted Galen, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, April 12, 2012, "The
Pernicious Myth That Iran Cant Be Deterred", CATO Institute,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/pernicious-myth-iran-cant-be-deterred)
Rumblings about possible war with Iran have grown louder in Washington and other Western
capitals in the past few months. Speculation has centered on the likelihood that Israel will launch preemptive air strikes against Irans nuclear
installations, but there is also considerable talk that the United States might join in such strikes or even take on the primary mission to make
certain that the key sites are destroyed. Most advocates of military action against Iran contend that the system of international economic
sanctions against the clerical regime is not halting progress on the countrys nuclear program and that the world simply cannot tolerate a nucleararmed Iran. President Obama has stated repeatedly that it would be unacceptable for Tehran to have nuclear weapons, and Mitt Romney, the
Presidents likely opponent in the November election, says flatly that he will never allow the emergence of a nuclear Iran on his watch. The
reason that a growing number of politicians

and pundits embrace the war option, even though most of them concede that such a step
could create dangerous instability in an already turbulent region, is that they explicitly or implicitly believe that Iran is
undeterrable. The typical allegation is that if Iran builds nuclear weapons, it will use them certainly against Israel, and possibly against
the United States or its NATO allies. Most realists dispute that notion, pointing out that the United States has
several thousand nuclear weapons and successfully deterred such difficult actors as the Soviet

Union and Maoist China. They also note that Israel has between 150 and 300 nuclear weapons an
extremely credible deterrent. None of that matters, hawks contend, because the Iranian leadership is not rational and, therefore, the normal logic
of deterrence does not apply. Several war advocates stress Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejads obsession with the return of the 12th
Imam, an event in Islamic lore that is to be accompanied by an apocalypse. Clifford May, the head of the neo-conservative Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies, argues that more than a few of Irans rulers hold the theological conviction that the return of the Mahdi, the savior, can
be brought about only by an apocalypse. He goes on to cite ultra-hawkish Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, who asserts that for those who
share Ahmadinejads vision, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent. Its an inducement. There are several problems with that thesis.
First, Ahmadinejad is hardly the most powerful figure in the Iranian political system. Thats why the all-too-frequent comparisons of
Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler are especially absurd. The real power in Iran is held by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his inner circle of senior
clerics. And members of that leadership elite have publicly rebuked Ahmadinejad for devoting too much time and energy to the issue of the 12th
Imam. Second, the return of the Mahdi in the midst of an apocalypse is scarcely a unique religious myth. Most major religions have an end of
the world mystic scenario involving a savior. Christianity, for example, has the Book of Revelations, with the appearance of the four horsemen
of the Apocalypse, Armageddon, and the second coming of Jesus Christ. Given the influence of Christianity among American political leaders,
foreign critics could make the case that the United States cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, because a devout Christian leader who believed
Revelations would be tempted to bring about Armageddon. The

reality is that leaders in any political system usually


prefer to enjoy the riches and other perks of this life rather than seek to bring about prematurely
the speculative benefits of a next life. There is no credible evidence that the Iranian leadership
deviates from that norm. And those leaders certainly know that a nuclear attack on Israel, the United States, or Washingtons NATO
allies would trigger a devastating counter-attack that would end their rule and obliterate Iran as a functioning society. It is appropriate to demand
that hawks produce evidence not just allegations that deterrence is inapplicable because Iranian leaders are suicidal. But one will search in
vain for such evidence in the thirty-three years that the clerical regime has held power. There is, in fact, an abundance of counter-evidence. Meir
Dagan, the former head of Israels Mossad intelligence agency, has stated that he considers Irans leaders including Ahmadinejad very
rational. Tehrans behavior over the years confirms that assessment. During the early stages of the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, the Ayatollah
Khomeini said that he would never make peace with Saddam Hussein. But when the war dragged on for years and the correlation of forces
turned against Iran, the countrys military leaders persuaded Khomeini and the clerical elite to conclude a compromise peace. Thats hardly the
behavior of an irrational, suicidal political system. Indeed, there

is strong evidence that Iranian leaders understand


that there are red lines that they dare not cross. One of the specters that Western hawks create is that Iran would transfer
nuclear weapons to non-state terrorist groups. But Iran has had chemical weapons in its arsenal since the days of
the Shah. There is not a shred of evidence that Tehran has passed on such weapons to any of its
political clients, including Hezbollah and Hamas. Given the visceral hatred those organizations harbor toward Israel, it is nearly certain
that they would have used chemical weapons against Israeli targets if Iran had ever put them in their hands. Again, it certainly appears that
deterrence neutralized any temptation Tehran might have had to engage in reckless conduct. A more

rational fear than the


notion that Iran would commit suicide by launching a nuclear attack against adversaries who
have vast nuclear arsenals, or even that Iran would court a similar fate by supplying terrorist groups with nukes, is the thesis that
Tehran would exploit a nuclear shield to then bully its neighbors. But even that fear is greatly exaggerated. As Cato Institute
scholar Justin Logan points out in the April issue of The American Conservative, Irans conventional forces are weak and
the countrys power projection capabilities are meager. A nuclear Iran likely would be capable of
deterring a US attack on its homeland attacks that the United States has a habit of launching against non-nuclear adversaries
like Serbia, Iraq and Libya but such a capability would not translate into Iranian domination of the
Middle East. That nightmare scenario is only a little less overwrought than the other theories
about the Iranian threat.