Post Emory Ptix

Stefan Bauschard
January 29, 2015 Politics
TPA............................................................................................................................................. 3
TPA U...................................................................................................................................... 4
TPA U/PC Key......................................................................................................................... 6
U Obama Pushing.............................................................................................................. 12
A2: Keystone......................................................................................................................... 13
A2: Iran Sanctions Thumper.................................................................................................. 16
A2: TPA not k2 pivot............................................................................................................... 17
TPA Asia Wars Impact........................................................................................................ 18
A2: No trade deals................................................................................................................. 20
A2: No TPP............................................................................................................................ 23
Iran............................................................................................................................................ 24
Shell....................................................................................................................................... 25
UQ......................................................................................................................................... 31
Iran Top of the Agenda........................................................................................................... 40
PC U/IL.................................................................................................................................. 42
A2: Structural Violence.......................................................................................................... 43
Impact Extensions................................................................................................................. 44
Prolif Impact........................................................................................................................... 50
Sanctions Kill the Current Deal..............................................................................................52
A2: No Vote........................................................................................................................... 54
A2: 2016................................................................................................................................ 55
A2: No Deal........................................................................................................................... 57
A2: Deal Bad/Doesnt Stop Prolif...........................................................................................64
A2: TPA.................................................................................................................................. 68
A2: Need Sanctions............................................................................................................... 71
Iran DA Background............................................................................................................... 74
Veto Override Threshold........................................................................................................ 75
Gitmo......................................................................................................................................... 76
Shell....................................................................................................................................... 77
Keystone................................................................................................................................... 79
Affirmative................................................................................................................................. 82
Offshore Oil Push Thumper................................................................................................... 83
Bipartisanship NU.................................................................................................................. 84
Thumpers.............................................................................................................................. 85
AUMF Answers...................................................................................................................... 87
Democrat Unity NU................................................................................................................ 88
Republican Unity NY.............................................................................................................. 89
TPA Aff Democrat Support NU............................................................................................90
Iran Aff T/O......................................................................................................................... 91
Iran Aff Sanctions Wont Kill a Deal....................................................................................92
Iran Aff Prolif Internal Link Answer......................................................................................93
Stefan Bauschard
Stefan Bauschard
TPA
Stefan Bauschard
TPA U
Obama revived TPA push, its his top prioritypolitical capital determines
passage
Alex Rogers, Time Magazine, 1/21/15, Heres the One State of the Union Talking Point
Republicans Liked,time.com/3676347/state-of-the-union-2015-trade/
About a half-hour into President
Obamas State of the Union a strange thing happened : most of the

Republicans jumped up and cheered while most Democrats stayed seated and silent. It was the only
time it happened Tuesday night, and the topic was trade. China wants to write the rules for the worlds fastestgrowing region, said Obama. That would put our workers and businesses at a disadvantage. Why should we let that
happen? We should write those rules. We should level the playing field. Im the first one to admit that past trade deals
havent always lived up to the hype, and thats why weve gone after countries that break the rules at our expense, added
Obama, who earned a brief cheer from democratic socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders before continuing. But 95% of
the worlds customers live outside our borders, and we cant close ourselves off from those opportunities. More than half
of manufacturing executives have said theyre actively looking at bringing jobs back from China. Lets give them one more
reason to get it done. There are few areas of agreement between Obama and the new Republican
Congress, but trade promotion authority, or TPA, which would ease the passage of the 12-country Trans
Pacific Partnership, or TPP, potentially the largest free trade agreement ever, is one of them . For years
the Administration has been negotiating TPPaffecting about 40% of the worlds GDP and about a third of the
worlds tradebut so far Obama has yet to prove to Republicans that he is willing to spend the time,
effort and political capital to get it done . But on Tuesday night, the Republicans
response to his message was ecstatic. The Republican Senate and House whips, Texas Sen. John
Cornyn and Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, said that the trade talk was probably one of the brightest spots and
the most promising part of the speech. Other top Republicans who criticize Obama around the clock, like
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, said they hoped the President would now push the issue. Senate
Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, the most senior member, said Obamas remarks were welcome but long
overdue. In 1993, President Bill Clinton led an all-out push to get the massive North America trade deal through
Congress. There were face-to-face White House meetings with Congressmen, White House envoys roaming the Hill, and
37 Commerce Department reports targeting industries from computers to autos, according to a Christian Science
Monitor report, that helped show Congressmen how NAFTA would help their constituents. In October of that year, former
CEO of the Chrysler Corporation, Lee Iacocca, stood on the White House South Lawn with hundreds of products (and
businessmen) touting what the Administration believed would thrive under NAFTA. Under the white tents, Clinton joked to
a pro-trade union man that he would wear the mans company hat if he gave a speech. A month later, the House passed
the bill in a squeaker and the Senate did shortly thereafter. This time around, Republicans are hoping for another
all-out Administration effort on TPP
and the fast-track bill, which would allow limited
congressional debate, no amendments, and an up-or-down vote. The Administration says such a bill is vital to pass
TPP, as countries would be less willing to negotiate if they knew Congress could make large changes to the deal. But
liberals are livid with Obamas trade talk; they set up a press conference Wednesday to air out their concerns.
The typical business plan in this country because of trade and tax policies: You shut down production in Cleveland and
you move it to Beijing and sell the products back to the United States, said Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown after the State of
the Union. That makes no sense. And hes wrong on that as his predecessors were. If you think that previous trade
agreements. . . have done well, you should support the TPP, said Sanders. But if you believe, as I do, that they have
been disastrous, that they have cost us millions of decent paying jobs, then it make no sense to go forward in a failed
policy and it should be defeated. . . . At the end of the day, among many other concerns, American workers are going to
be forced to compete against people in Vietnam who make a minimum wage of 56 cents an hour. Still pro-trade
lawmakers like Democratic Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill believe that
Obama can bring enough
Democrats to pass a fast-track trade bill . Democratic Maryland Senator Ben Cardin,
who supported the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 but opposed the more recent trade agreement bills with
South Korea, Panama and Columbia, said Obama probably has the votes now to pass a TPA bill
through Congress, although its easier in the Senate than House, where some conservatives have also raised an
uproar about giving more power to the President. The
White House has recently increased its
outreach efforts , tasking every Cabinet member to divvy up and target 80 House
Democrats, according to the Hill newspaper. In an email Wednesday, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker told TIME
Stefan Bauschard
trade agenda is a top priority for the Administration. We are taking an allhands-on-deck approach to getting this done, she said. We are all out talking not only to members of
Congress but to business leaders and workers around the country, telling the story of why trade and exports
that the
matter.
Stefan Bauschard
TPA U/PC Key

Obama will secure TPA with an all-out push
David Nakamura, 1-27-15, Washington Post, Critical of Obamas past actions, GOP now wants to
give him more power on trade; Republicans have criticized the presidents actions but now want
to give him fast-track authority in trade deals., DOA: 1-29-15
Republicans have consistently railed at President Obama's exercise of his executive authority,
disparaging him as "an emperor" who has ignored Congress on immigration, climate and Cuba.
Now that they fully control the Congress, those same Republicans critics are on the verge of
handing the president expansive new powers to circumvent those who want to stand in
his way on trade. GOP leaders in both chambers are close to introducing legislation that
would grant the administration broad authority to finalize one of the largest free-trade
pacts in the nation's history. Lawmakers would not be allowed to amend the terms, and
Congress would be required to hold a relatively quick up-or-down vote that could not be
filibustered. The aim of such fast-track legislation, formally known as trade-promotion authority
(TPA), is to give U.S. negotiators more leverage to complete a deal by assuring their international
counterparts that changes could not be made after the fact. Obama called for the powers in his
State of the Union address, and his push represents a rare area of common cause with
Republicans. Though the GOP has spent the past several months accusing the president of
abusing his powers by sidestepping Congress on a number of issues, only a small number of
conservative lawmakers has lobbied against granting Obama the additional authority on trade.
Just 19 Republicans signed a letter last month warning against pursuing the fast-track legislation
during the lame duck session, and none attended a tea party group's news conference on Capitol
Hill two weeks ago to denounce the push. On Tuesday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman
Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)
are scheduled to preside over separate hearings on the administration's trade agenda. Both
committees are expected to move forward with legislation in the next several weeks, with the aim
of passing a bill through Congress by the end of April, congressional aides said. Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) both support the
push.
"This president has earned our distrust, but having said that, I still support TPA," Rep. Darrell Issa
(R-Calif.), one of Obama's fiercest critics as the former head of the House Oversight Committee,
said in an interview. "I still want to have the trade team be able to go forward and make good
offers." The Obama administration hopes that expanded trade powers will help negotiators
achieve a final breakthrough this year on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive free-trade
and regulatory agreement between the United States and 11 other countries. The deal has been
hung up over a number of thorny issues mostly between the United States and Japan on
agriculture and automobiles and U.S. officials believe they can win more concessions if
the other nations believe Congress has authorized the administration to put its best and
final offer on the table. Despite the tenuous alliance between the White House and the
congressional GOP, the process remains fraught with uncertainty. Democrats, organized labor
and environmental groups have cited numerous concerns over the trade pact and warned that
Congress cannot afford to relinquish any of its oversight powers on a massive deal when
negotiations have largely been kept hidden from the public view. If anything, GOP leaders said,
the real outreach on trade will be for Obama to convince skeptical members of his own
party; both sides agree that a small number of Democratic votes will be needed to ensure
passage of a fast-track bill. Protesters interrupted the Senate hearing Tuesday morning,
shouting and holding signs against the trade deals and fast-track authority before Hatch ordered
them removed from the room. Last week, Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking member
on the Ways and Means Committee, hinted that he would not now support fast-track legislation,
even though he said he remains open-minded about the Pacific trade pact itself. "Congress must
Stefan Bauschard
maintain our leverage," he said in a briefing for reporters. Hatch has been working with Sen.
Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in hopes of introducing a bipartisan measure in the Senate. "We will
need an all-out effort by the administration to make the case for why TPA is so vital to our
nation's ability to fairly engage in international trade and to enhance the health of our economy,"
Hatch said at Tuesday's hearing. "Simply put, trade means jobs."
Congress established trade promotion authority in 1974 to give the president temporary powers
for a defined period in hopes of bringing complicated trade deals to completion more quickly,
without subjecting them to endless debates and pressure from interest groups.
The power was most recently granted to former president George W. Bush from 2002 through
2007, and the Obama administration was able to use the fast-track provision to help close free
trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama in 2011, because the negotiations
had begun during Bush's tenure.
Last year, the White House launched a drive to renew the fast-track authority in hopes of
finalizing the Pacific trade pact, which Obama has called a key element of his broader strategy to
refocus U.S. foreign policy on Asia. But then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blocked
the move amid opposition from organized labor in a midterm election year.
In making their case this year, Obama aides and Republican leaders have argued that Congress
is not abdicating its oversight if it grants the president fast-track authority. Rather, they said, the
legislation would be written to include a list of specific negotiating priorities and objectives to
guide the administration and requirements for negotiators to report to Congress.
Obama will secure TPA PC is key

Hadar, The Business Times Singapore, 1-7-15 (Leon, former research fellow
with the Cato Institute, contributing editor for The American Conservative and a regular
contributor to Chronicles and Reason and a regular blogger on the Huffington Post, Ph.D. from
the School of International Service (SIS) at American University, Obama to be the trade
president?, lexis, accessed 1-13-15)
THE current conventional
wisdom in Washington goes something like this: Both the

Senate and the House of Representatives will be under Republican control during the remaining
two years of the Barack Obama presidency, thus making it quite likely that no major legislation
will be enacted before the next president is sworn into office in 2017. In theory, the
Republicans could try to pass new laws; for example, revoking Mr Obama's most significant legislative achievement, the
Affordable Care Act or "Obamacare". But Mr Obama could and would probably succeed in vetoing this and similar
proposed GOP legislation. More likely, he will continue using his executive power that allows him to decree rules without
congressional consent. And, indeed, despite Republican opposition, Mr Obama has already advanced new rules that
would allow illegal immigrants residing in the United States to get their status changed to that of legal residents. And he is
also in the process of enacting new environmental regulations, such as the one that would reduce ozone, a smog-causing
pollutant linked to asthma, heart disease and premature death. But contrary to this conventional
wisdom, there is a better than 50 per cent chance that the Democratic
White House and Republican Congress could secure the passage of major, even
historic, legislation in the form of two ground-breaking global trade deals in 2015, the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Asian nations and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with
the European Union (EU). And to make things even more interesting, Mr Obama's decision to normalise diplomatic
relations with Cuba needs to be followed this year with a move by Congress to overturn the US trade embargo on Cuba
and reopen trade relations with the Caribbean island-nation. Otherwise the two countries would have embassies in each
other's capital but American companies and investors wouldn't be able to do business in Cuba. Indeed, as Mr Obama
settles back to work after his vacation in Hawaii and the newly elected lawmakers
get ready to be sworn in this month, one can already sense the political tension in
the air in Washington, the kind that arises before big things are about to
happen. But unlike during the last six years when the major political fights pitted
Mr Obama against his Republican detractors on Capitol Hill, and that led, among other things,
to the shutdown of the federal government, the coming legislative game of brinkmanship over
global trade policy will be between two strange coalitions of adversaries: an axis
of proponents of trade liberalisation that would bring together Mr Obama and
Stefan Bauschard
Republican congressional leaders versus the majority of congressional

Democrats who have major reservations about the proposed trade deals. The debate
over lifting of the trade embargo on Cuba could make for even odder bedfellows, with left-wing Democrats and probusiness Republican supporting the move by the White House, and right-wing foreign policy hawks opposing it. Mr
Obama has already succeeded in winning congressional approval for trade

accords with Panama, Colombia and South Korea. So if the three ambitious White House trade
initiatives are achieved in the next two years, Mr Obama could be known as the Trade President, not unlike Democratic
president Bill Clinton in the 1990s who was able to reshape US and global trade policies. At this stage of the legislative
game, the focus is on the trade deal being negotiated with the 12 Pacific economies for five years and that has yet to be
concluded but that both the White House and the Republican congressional leaders support. The TPP - which could turn
out be the largest trade accord in history, involving economies that comprise 40 per cent of the world's gross domestic
product - enjoys the backing of the US Chamber of Commerce and leading American corporations that tend to be close
political allies of the GOP, and which are pressing the Republican leaders to approve the deal. The TPP is also seen by
the White House as well as by Republican foreign policy hawks as part of an effort to reassert US strategic and economic
interests in the Pacific at a time when China seems to be challenging them by proposing an Asia-only economic grouping
and expressing opposition to US military presence in the region. Many Democrats - especially members of the
progressive wing of the party, who enjoy the support of powerful labour unions - oppose the TPP, arguing that not unlike
other trade deals, it would benefit the big corporations and raise their profits but would kill many American jobs and hurt
members of the middle class and working people. According to reports, Mr Obama has told the Business
Roundtable that he was committed to actively pushing for trade deals, even if that
could mean a fight with his traditional Democratic allies, and that he was
confident that the TPP, as well as the TTIP, could be concluded and approved in
2015. In fact, most Washington insiders agree that when it comes to trade
policy, it's now - in 2015 - or never , since it would be impossible to get an
agreement between the White House and Congress on trade in 2016 during an
election year. US Trade Representative Michael Froman has insisted during recent public and media
appearances that he was confident the TPP and the rest of the White House's trade
agenda was attainable, creating the impression that the political momentum
was now on the side of the free trade s. Mr Froman's optimism is based in
part on the assumption that with the majority control of both houses of Congress
shifting in 2015 to the Republicans, it's more likely that Mr Obama would be
granted a trade promotion authority (TPA) aka "fast track", which allows the White House to
negotiate and conclude trade deals and then bring them before Congress for an
up-or-down vote (as opposed to voting for or against each clause of a proposed trade deal, thus ensuring that it
would be "killed" in the process). The consensus in Washington is that notwithstanding
their hostility towards the current White House occupant, the Republican leaders
in Congress would be able to muster the support of enough Republicans in the
House and the Senate - plus a few centrist Democrats - to get the TPA
approved sooner than later. "I've got a lot of members who believe that
international trade agreements are a winner for America and the president and I
discussed that right before I came over here. I think he's interested in moving
forward. I said, 'send us trade agreements, we're anxious to look at them'," the new Senate Majority
Leader, Republican Mitch McConnell from Kentucky, said recently.
Momentum for passage is building Obama is whipping

votes in line now and will ratchet up the push with the
State of the Union
Thomas, Inside U.S. Trade, 1-15-15 (David, White House Sets Up Whip Operation
For TPA Involving Senior Officials, Vol. 33, No. 2, http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/InsideU.S.-Trade-01/16/2015/white-house-sets-up-whip-operation-for-tpa-involving-seniorofficials/menu-id-172.html, accessed 1-15-15, CMM)
Stefan Bauschard
Under the leadership of National Economic Council Director Jeff Zients ,
the White House has set up an

operation of senior officials seeking to garner votes for a fast-track or Trade Promotion
Authority (TPA) bill, according to informed sources. This operation, which began in December and
is ongoing, involves Cabinet officials assigned to reach out to Democratic
lawmakers perceived as gettable votes, outside interest groups, and former
government officials, they said. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman is involved in the
effort, but Zients' prominence is necessary because Froman is also focused on closing the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) deal, one source said. According to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Froman has indicated to senators that TPP could be
wrapped up in two months (see related story). The administration has acquiesced to Republican demands that a fast-track
bill be passed before TPP is concluded, and congressional Republicans hope to release a bill in
early February, sources said. Republicans are also setting a target for final
congressional passage by the end of March, but some sources caution that this is very ambitious and
noted that no firm decision has been made on the timeline. A pro-TPA lobbyist described the activity
as a "whip effort" that is targeting Democratic lawmakers who realistically would
vote for a TPA bill. In late July, President Obama discussed his trade agenda with a group
of 12 pro-trade House Democrats that are seen as gettable TPA votes, the majority of
whom are members of the New Democrat Coalition. The source noted that this operation shows the
administration really wants to see a fast-track bill approved , particularly
since it is a departure from its otherwise hands-off legislative
approach . Cabinet-level officials are attending bi-weekly meetings along with
White House advisers like Valerie Jarrett, while deputies meet weekly on the TPA
effort. Cabinet officials involved in this operation have been assigned certain
lawmakers or groups to whom they are to reach out to on TPA. The specific assignment can
depend on a given lawmaker's interest in trade, or on an existing relationship between an official and a lawmaker. For
instance, Secretary of State John Kerry could reach out to a Democratic lawmaker who has an interest in foreign policy.
Multiple sources said the sequencing of which chamber will move first on a TPA bill has not yet been decided, although
one informed source said there is a good chance that the Senate Finance Committee will
kick off the action with a markup. That would be followed by a House Ways &
Means Committee markup, House floor action, and Senate floor action. This
scenario, which has long been floated by TPA advocates, would be beneficial to supporters
because a fast-track bill is expected to garner more Democratic support in
Finance than in Ways & Means. As a result, having Finance go first would build
more momentum for passage while also providing political cover for
House Democrats to support a TPA bill. One possible scenario would then be for
Ways & Means and the House as whole to pass a clean TPA bill that would be
amended in the Senate with other trade legislation such as the Generalized System of
Preferences and potentially Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Then the House and Senate would
hold a conference to hammer out a compromise version, which as a conference
report would have to be approved by both chambers in an up-or-down vote. This
approach could reduce divisiveness in the House GOP because it would
avoid a contentious floor debate over TAA, since the House would never consider TAA in an
amendable trade bill, but only as part of a conference report. But it could also cause a backlash from the GOP ranks who
might resent not having the chance to amend TAA, sources speculated. The White House push could
ratchet up in the near future, such as in Obama's State of the Union address on Jan.
20. One industry source speculated that the administration has kept this operation quiet so as
not to preempt a possible announcement on TPA by Obama during the address. "They
don't want to steal the president's thunder," he said. He said he expected to hear more
about the White House effort publicly after the State of the Union, and that
Obama would subsequently ratchet up his public support of TPA. Rep. Kevin
Stefan Bauschard
10
Brady (R-TX) said more important than what Obama says in the State of the Union are what actions he takes to lobby
Congressional Democrats on TPA. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest hinted that the
administration would be making a bigger push for trade, when asked by a reporter during the
Jan. 13 daily press briefing on how hard the president is willing to push Democrats to keep them from blocking an
agreement on trade. "The President will make a forceful case to both Democrats and
Republicans that what he is doing [on trade] is clearly in the best interest of the American economy," he said.
Separately, Brady told Inside U.S. Trade after a Jan. 13 House Ways & Means Committee hearing on U.S. economic
growth that he had begun to hear about the Obama administration's efforts to press congressional Democrats in order to
pass a TPA bill. "We're hopeful that the president weighs in, and we start to hear some
whispers that he is -- with some Democrats both in the House and the Senate," he
said. " It's going to require his leadership to get this done. His
personal leadership and political capital. But I'm absolutely
confident we can get this done."
Asked to elaborate on what these whispers were, Brady
emphasized that Froman can't advocate for TPA on his own. "I think it's
going to take an all-hands-on-deck approach by the president and the Cabinet.
And if they do that, there's actually no question that this will succeed," he added. U.S.
Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue also pinned his hopes on Obama
being "very aggressive" on TPA in the State of the Union address. Speaking at a Jan. 14
press conference, Donohue said the president has "begun to make it clear, first of all, to his
own team that he wants the Cabinet and others up there working on this. I'm hopeful
that he'll be very aggressive on it at the State of the Union." Donohue called on Obama to "really fight for [TPA], especially
before members of his own party" during the Chamber's annual State of American Business address. But he added that
Obama will have to "spend some time assuring Republicans of what [TPA] is
going to lead to." But Obama's task of wrangling Democrats to support TPA will
not be easy, according to Bruce Josten, the Chamber's executive vice president of government affairs. He
estimated that there are "200 good Republican votes for this, but you want some
balance [in the final vote count]." He added that both House and Senate
Republican leaderships are determined to renew TPA. At the same time, however, Donohue
insisted during the press conference following his speech that there are enough votes in Congress to
get TPA passed. "We believe there are plenty, plenty of votes to get this
done. I believe we will get it done," he said.
TPA will pass---Obama is ratcheting up pressure and Dems

will get on board---but political capital is key
Inside US Trade 1/16, WHITE HOUSE SETS UP WHIP OPERATION FOR TPA
INVOLVING SENIOR OFFICIALS, lexis
Under the leadership of National Economic Council Director Jeff Zients,
the White House has set up an operation of senior officials seeking to garner votes for a
fast-track or Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill, according to informed sources. This operation, which began in December and is ongoing, involves Cabinet officials assigned to reach out to
Democratic lawmakers perceived as gettable votes, outside interest groups, and former government officials, they said. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman is involved in the effort, but
Zients' prominence is necessary because Froman is also focused on closing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal, one source said. According to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Froman has
indicated to senators that TPP could be wrapped up in two months (see related story). The administration has acquiesced to Republican demands that a fast-track bill be passed before TPP is
concluded, and congressional Republicans hope to release a bill in early February, sources said. Republicans are also setting a target for final congressional passage by the end of March, but
some sources caution that this is very ambitious and noted that no firm decision has been made on the timeline. A pro-TPA lobbyist described the activity as
effort"
that
a "whip
is targeting Democratic lawmakers who realistically would
vote for a TPA bill.
In late July, President Obama discussed his trade agenda with a group of 12 pro-trade House Democrats that are seen as gettable TPA
this operation shows the administration

fast-track bill approved, particularly since it is a departure from its
votes, the majority of whom are members of the New Democrat Coalition. The source noted that
really wants
to see a
otherwise hands-off legislative approach . Cabinet-level officials are attending bi-weekly meetings along with White
House advisers like Valerie Jarrett, while deputies meet weekly on the TPA effort. Cabinet officials involved in this operation have been assigned certain lawmakers or groups to whom they are to
reach out to on TPA. The specific assignment can depend on a given lawmaker's interest in trade, or on an existing relationship between an official and a lawmaker. For instance, Secretary of
State John Kerry could reach out to a Democratic lawmaker who has an interest in foreign policy. Multiple sources said the sequencing of which chamber will move first on a TPA bill has not yet
Stefan Bauschard
11
there is a good chance that the Senate Finance Committee

will kick off the action with a markup. That would be followed by a House Ways & Means Committee markup, House floor action, and Senate floor action. This
scenario, which has long been floated by TPA advocates, would be beneficial to supporters because a fast-track bill is
been decided, although one informed source said
expected to garner more Democratic support in Finance

having Finance go first would build
more
than in Ways & Means. As a result,
momentum for passage while also
providing political cover for House Democrats to support a TPA bill. One possible scenario would then
be for Ways & Means and the House as whole to pass a clean TPA bill that would be amended in the Senate with other trade legislation such as the Generalized System of Preferences and
potentially Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Then the House and Senate would hold a conference to hammer out a compromise version, which as a conference report would have to be
approved by both chambers in an up-or-down vote.
This approach could reduce divisiveness in the House
GOP because it would avoid a contentious floor debate over TAA, since the House would never
consider TAA in an amendable trade bill, but only as part of a conference report. But it could also cause a backlash from the GOP ranks who might resent not having the chance to amend TAA,
sources speculated.
The White House push could ratchet up in the near future , such as in
Obama's State of the Union address on Jan. 20. One industry source speculated that the administration has kept this operation quiet so as not to preempt a possible announcement on TPA by
Obama during the address. "They don't want to steal the president's thunder," he said. He said he expected to hear more about the White House effort publicly after the State of the Union, and
that Obama would subsequently ratchet up his public support of TPA. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) said more important than what Obama says in the State of the Union are what actions he takes to
lobby Congressional Democrats on TPA. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest hinted that
the administration would be making a
bigger push for trade , when asked by a reporter during the Jan. 13 daily press briefing on how hard the president is willing to push Democrats to keep
them from blocking an agreement on trade. "The President will make a forceful case
to both Democrats and Republicans
that
what he is doing [on trade] is clearly in the best interest of the American economy," he said. Separately, Brady told Inside U.S. Trade after a Jan. 13 House Ways & Means Committee hearing on
U.S. economic growth that he had begun to hear about the Obama administration's efforts to press congressional Democrats in order to pass a TPA bill. "We're hopeful that the president weighs
It's going to require his leadership to get this

His personal leadership and political capital. But I'm absolutely confident we
in, and we start to hear some whispers that he is -- with some Democrats both in the House and the Senate," he said. "
done.
can get this done." Asked to elaborate on what these whispers were, Brady emphasized that Froman can't advocate for TPA on his own. "I think it's
going to take an all-hands-on-deck approach by the president
and the Cabinet.
And if they do that, there's actually no question that this will succeed ," he added. U.S.
Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue also pinned his hopes on Obama being "very aggressive" on TPA in the State of the Union address. Speaking at a Jan. 14 press conference,
Donohue said the president has "begun to make it clear, first of all, to his own team that he wants the Cabinet and others up there working on this. I'm hopeful that he'll be very aggressive on it at
Donohue called on Obama to " really fight for [TPA], especially before members of his
own party" during the Chamber's annual State of American Business address. But he added that Obama will have to "spend some time
assuring Republicans of what [TPA] is going to lead to." But Obama's task of wrangling Democrats to
the State of the Union."
support TPA will not be easy, according to Bruce Josten, the Chamber's executive vice president of government affairs. He estimated that there are "200 good Republican votes for this, but you
want some balance [in the final vote count]." He added that both House and Senate Republican leaderships are determined to renew TPA. At the same time, however, Donohue insisted during
the press conference following his speech that
passed.
there are enough votes in Congress to get TPA
"We believe there are plenty, plenty of votes to get this done. I believe we will get it done," he said.
Stefan Bauschard
12
U Obama Pushing
Obama pushing TPA
Vicki Needham, 1-28-15, The Hill, New Democrats Want Assurances on Party Support for
Trade, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/231082-new-democrats-want-assurances-on-partysupport-on-trade DOA: 1-29-15
Forhispart,U.S.TradeRepresentativeMichaelFromanreiteratedduringhearingsTuesdayon
CapitolHilltheObamaadministrationscommitmenttoconvincingDemocratstobackfasttrack
andthetradedeals.Hereferredtothewholegovernmentapproachofbuildingsupport,which
includesafullcourtpressfromthepresidentsCabinet.Infact,theObamaadministrationstwoyear
longcampaigntogettradefriendlyDemocratsonboardisworking,aHouseDemocraticaidesaid.Rep.
RonKindofWisconsin,chairmanoftheNewDemocrats,hasbeenoutspokeninadvocatingforanewway
tonegotiatetradeagreementswhileurgingothermembersofhispartytolookhardataworldwithoutthe
UnitedStatesleadingontrade.Ialsothinkweneedaproactive,aggressivetradeagendathatsgoingto
workforAmericanworkersandourbusinesses,"KindsaidWednesdayonCSPANsWashingtonJournal.
Stefan Bauschard
13
A2: Keystone
Keystone wont tank Obamas pcalso applies to
executive action.
Sink, White House correspondent for The Hill, Wong, Senior staff
writer for the Hill, 1-12-15
[Justin, Scott, 1-12-15, the Hill, Veto battles set to begin,
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/229116-veto-battles-set-to-begin, accessed: 1-15-15,
CAS]
The president has been clear that there will be some actions by Congress that he
wont support, just like some in Congress will oppose steps that we take on our
own, the White House official said. But those disagreements should not
interfere with the many areas of bipartisan interest, like tax reform, trade, and
infrastructure, where we can work together to get things done for the American
people.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also said she thought the veto
strategy could spur legislative collaboration, arguing that part of working
together is to make clear where we have common ground and where we do not.
Low oil prices mean Obama wont take any flack for
blocking Keystone
Harder, WSJ, 12-23-14 (Amy, Obama Doubts and Lower Gas Prices Cloud Keystone
Future, http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-doubts-and-lower-gas-prices-cloud-keystone-future1419381903, accessed 1-1-15, CMM)
Prospects for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline are dimming amid two recent
developments: lower gasoline prices and increased skepticism from President Barack
Obama, whose administration has been reviewing the proposed pipeline for more
than six years. Mr. Obama last week said he had doubts the pipeline would benefit
the U.S., buttressing remarks he has made publicly at least three other times since
early November. He said it wouldnt create many permanent jobs or cut gas prices,
as the projects supporters have argued Its very good for Canadian oil companies, and its good for the Canadian oil
industry, but its not going to be a huge benefit to U.S. consumers, Mr. Obama said. Many analysts say falling U.S. gas
prices boost the argument of Keystone opponents that Canadian oil isnt necessary amid the current global oversupply.
Generally, the public is typically more sympathetic to pro-oil-production policies
when gasoline prices are high, said Michael Levi, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
And when gasoline prices are low, that can create room for policies that impede
production. Proponents have pressed repeatedly for Keystones approval and
intend to do so again in early 2015. Republicans, who will control both chambers of Congress next year,
plan to act in January on legislation aimed at forcing approval of the pipeline. President Obamas comments about the
Keystone XL pipeline today were more of the same and just not accurate, said Sen. John Hoeven (R., N.D.), a key
Senate supporter, the latest remarks. Mr. Hoeven said he will work to ensure legislation approving Keystone clears
Congress. Keystone XL, which would send as many as 830,000 barrels of oil a day 1,700 miles from Canadas oil sands
to Gulf Coast refineries, has become a flash point in the nations debate over energy independence, economic growth and
climate change. Opponents say approving the pipeline would indicate the U.S. was deepening its dependence on fossil
fuels. Supporters say Keystone would create thousands of jobs and is the safest way to move oil that would otherwise be
transported in less secure ways, such as by rail. Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. in 2008 applied for a permit for the
project from the State Department, which reviews cross-border pipelines. The administration has been
waiting for the Nebraska Supreme Court to rule on a lawsuit brought by

landowners who challenged a state law used to approve the pipelines path. That
ruling is expected in the coming weeks and could clear the way for the administration to decide. In making its decision
known as the national interest determinationthe State Department considers energy security as well as environmental,
geopolitical and economic impacts. Together, Mr. Obamas recent comments suggest he
Stefan Bauschard
14
doesnt think Keystone is in the nations interest.
The president hasnt always been so publicly

skeptical. In March 2012, he stood alongside pipes in Cushing, Okla., and said his administration had approved dozens of
oil and natural-gas pipelines, including from Canada. As long as Im president, were going to keep on encouraging oil
development and infrastructure and were going to do it in a way that protects the health and safety of the American
people, he said then. People familiar with Mr. Obamas thinking say he believes the
pipelines symbolic and political importance outweighs its impact on the economy
and climate change. Keystone has become bound up with his goal of making
climate-change action a legacy of his presidency. Global oil prices may make it
easier for him to reject Keystone. When the State Department issued an
environmental assessment in January, prices were between $94 and $110 a barrel.
Now they are between $55 and $61.
Obama veto doesnt cost PC

Neela Banerjee 1/9, "With Keystone Bill GOP Targets Obama's Climate Agenda, but Will It
Backfire?," 1-9-15, No Publication, http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20150109/keystone-billgop-targets-obamas-climate-agenda-will-it-backfire, DOA: 1-22-2015, y2k
A Keystone bill is expected to pass Congress easily, with some Democrats likely to back the bill, too. But
the White House said the president would veto it because he believes authority for approving the
project lies with the State Department (and the executive branch, more broadly), and the agencys review is still underway.
Few observers expect the bill to garner the 67 votes needed to override the veto.
Vetoing the bill wont
damage the presidents standing , Bowman said. The same Pew poll showed
support for Keystone has slipped
majority of
by seven percentage pointsover the last year, mainly because a
Democrats , for the first time, are now against it.
Dems wont vote on Keystone anyways---proves Obama

doesnt have to armtwist to sustain the veto
LAT 1/23, "Keystone XL amendments had senators doing the unusual: voting ... a lot," 1-232015, latimes, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-keystone-amendments-senate-votes20150123-story.html, DOA: 1-24-2015, y2k
Something unusual happened in Congress this week: Senators voted -- not just once or twice, but more than 20 times,
right up until midnight Thursday. In contrast to the recent years of gridlock and paralysis, senators took vote
after politically tough vote as they worked their way through a stack of
amendments to a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. It was part of the so-called regular
order that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed to deliver after Republicans took control of the chamber earlier
this month. The Kentucky Republican promised to restore a more open process that many senators hungered for after
Democrats ran the place with a tight grip during the previous eight years. But
without
its
shortcomings
the process was not
and it remains unclear how long his grand experiment will last. Late Thursday,
as midnight neared, McConnell abruptly shut down the Keystone debate, forcing senators to take a rapid-fire series of
votes without allowing discussion. The scene led to awkward moments as Democratic senators shouted for a chance to
be heard, even for just one minute. "Mr. President! Mr. President!" Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) hollered, trying to get the
attention of the presiding officer. "I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed one minute to speak on my amendment
before it is voted upon." McConnell stood stoically at his desk and uttered the simple debate-squashing retort, "I object."
The episode became so politically toxic , it now threatens to delay or derail

passage
next week
of the Keystone bill . On Friday, some frustrated Democrats
who support the pipeline are hinting they may withhold
their
votes
next week to
advance the legislation. "I think everybody understands, McConnell said late Thursday. We have been on this bill for a
while. We have already had more roll call votes on this bill than the entire Senate had on every bill through the whole year
of 2014. I think it is time that we start moving forward.
Democrats cried foul , saying McConnell
Stefan Bauschard
was jamming through the
15
Keystone
bill . They suggested it might have something to do with the
airplanes waiting to usher Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to a big Palm Springs
weekend political retreat being sponsored by the billionaire Koch brothers. McConnell's office put the blame squarely on
Democrats for slow-walking the process and then objecting to offers he made for votes on their measures as they pursued
even more time for debate. Suddenly the chamber erupted in familiar complaints that the
majority party was silencing the minority, though this time the roles were
reversed. "It's sad to see Sen. McConnell shut down debate three weeks into the Republican Senate, and even
sadder if he's doing it to let a few Republican senators skip town Friday for a retreat hosted by the Koch brothers, said
the spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. For the past two weeks, the Senate has been debating the
controversial oil pipeline bill in a long, but largely congenial, process that kicked into gear a few days ago as senators
began voting. It started as a textbook case of legislating as each side offered their amendments. There was even a
moment of levity when the chamber agreed overwhelmingly, 98-1, to a Democratic measure that said simply: Climate
change is real and not a hoax. In all, the Senate processed 24 amendments, most of them from Democrats, and
McConnell appeared on track to wrap up the lesson in legislating with final passage of the Keystone bill next week. But
session may be costly if it soured the mood among Democrats who

support the pipeline project. Their votes will be needed Monday for a key vote. Republicans have a 54the price of Thursday's
seat majority, but they need 60 votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster by the pipeline's opponents.
Stefan Bauschard
16
A2: Iran Sanctions Thumper

No movement on Iran sanctions until at least March 24
Oren Dorrell, 1-27-15, USA Today, Senate Dems Oppose Iran Sanctions Vote Before March 24,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/27/senate-democrats-iransanctions/22401973/ DOA: 1-29-15
DemocratsontheSenateBankingCommitteemadeclearTuesdaytheyopposepassinganewIran
sanctionsbill,atleastuntilaMarch24deadlineforaframeworkagreementintheongoingnegotiations.
"Wewillnotbackanewsanctionsbillatthistime,"saidSen.RobertMenendez,DN.J.,whoco
authoredthesanctionsbillwithSen.MarkKirk,anIllinoisRepublican,thatwouldimposenewsanctions
ifIranfailstoagreetoadeal.PresidentObamahasthreatenedtovetoanynewsanctionsbillpassedbythe
RepublicancontrolledCongress.SuchabillwouldneedDemocraticsupporttoachievethe67votes
neededtooverrideapresidentialveto.MenendezsaidhesentaletterTuesdaytoObama,togetherwith
otherDemocraticcosponsorsofthebill,sayingtheywouldseektodelayanyvotebecausetheyfavor
givingtheadministrationmoretimetoreachadeal.ObamahassaidtheU.S.willdowhateverittakes
topreventIranfromobtaininganuclearweapon,butmoresanctionswouldharmthetalks.
FoxNews,12715,SenateDemsBackDownonIran,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/27/senatedemsbackdownoniransaywontsupportsanctions
billyet/DOA:12915
AgroupofSenateDemocratsonTuesdayeasedofftheirpushfornewIransanctions,potentially
takingthewindoutofthebipartisanefforttomusclethroughthelegislationinthefaceofaPresident
Obamavetothreat.Inareversal,Sen.BobMenendez,DN.J.,announcedataSenatecommittee
hearingthatheandhisDemocraticcolleagueshadwrittentoObamatellinghimtheywouldholdoff
onsupportinglegislationthathehelpedwrite.ThebillwascoauthoredbyRepublicanIllinoisSen.
MarkKirk."WewillnotsupportpassageoftheKirkMenendezbillontheSenateflooruntilafter
March24,andonlyifthereisnopoliticalframeworkagreement,"Menendezannounced.
Stefan Bauschard
17
A2: TPA not k2 pivot

Watson changed his mind
Watson, trade policy analyst with Catos Herbert A Stiefel Center for
Trade Policy Studies, 1-15-14
(K William, What to Look for in the Upcoming Trade Policy Debate,
http://www.cato.org/blog/what-look-upcoming-trade-policy-debate, accessed 1-22-14, CMM)
The most important piece of trade legislation Congress has dealt with in years was introduced in
the House and Senate last week. The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014 sets
out the parameters for renewing trade promotion authority (TPA), originally known as fast track,
in order to ease eventual passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other agreements through
Congress. There will be a lot of debate in the coming months about what U.S. trade policy should
look like, and this TPA bill will do a lot to establish the agenda. The new bill largely mirrors the
last TPA grant in 2002. The basic idea of fast track is that Congress agrees to hold an up-or-down
vote on any trade agreement submitted by the president, while the president agrees to adopt a
series of negotiating objectives laid out by Congress. Ive explained before why I think TPA is not
necessary right now to get agreements through Congress and why it could even make the TPP
negotiations more difficult. However, that argument is temporarily moot
since this TPA bill is on the table and will apply not only to the TPP
but to the U.S.-EU trade agreement and any World Trade
Organzation negotiations for the next four years. Defeat of this bill could
quite possibly kill any chance the president has to conclude trade agreements before the end of
his term. Also, the negotiating objectives included in the new bill are not as bad as I had feared.
Stefan Bauschard
18
TPA Asia Wars Impact

Asia power competition is the most likely scenario for nuclear war
Campbell et al 8 (Kurt M, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Dr. Campbell served in
several capacities in government, including as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and the Pacific, Director on
theNational Security Council Staff, previously the Chief Executive Officer and co-founder of the Center for a New
American Security (CNAS), served as Director of the Aspen Strategy Group and the Chairman of the Editorial Board of
the Washington Quarterly, and was the founder and Principal of StratAsia, a strategic advisory company focused on Asia,
rior to co-founding CNAS, he served as Senior Vice President, Director of the International Security Program, and the
Henry A. Kissinger Chair in National Security Policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, doctorate in
International Relation Theory from Oxford, former associate professor of public policy and international relations at
the John F. Kennedy School of Government and Assistant Director of the Center for Science and International Affairs
at Harvard University, member of Council on Foreign Relations and International Institute for Strategic Studies, The
Power of Balance: America in iAsia June 2008,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatelSingh_iAsia_June08.pdf )
Asian investment is also at record levels. Asian countries lead the world with unprecedented infrastructure projects. With over $3 trillion in foreign currency reserves, Asian nations and businesses
are starting to shape global economic activity. Indian firms are purchasing industrial giants such
as Arcelor Steel, as well as iconic brands of its once-colonial ruler, such as Jaguar and Range
Rover. Chinas Lenovo bought IBMs personal computer
We call the transformations across the Asia-Pacific the emergence of iAsia to reflect the
adoption by countries across Asia of fundamentally new strategic approaches to their neighbors
and the world. Asian nations are pursuing their interests with real power in a period
of both tremendous potential and great uncertainty. iAsia is: Integrating: iAsia includes
increasing economic interdependence and a flowering of multinational forums to deal with trade,
cultural exchange, and, to some degree, security. Innovating: iAsia boasts the worlds most
successful manufacturing and technology sectors and could start taking the lead in everything
from finance to nanotech to green tech. Investing: Asian nations are developing infrastructure and
human capital at unprecedented rates. But the continent remains plagued by: Insecurity:
Great-power rivalry is alive in Asia. Massive military investments along with

historic suspicions and contemporary territorial and other conflicts make war in
Asia plausible. Instability: From environmental degradation to violent extremism to
trafficking in drugs, people, and weapons, Asian nations have much to worry
about. Inequality: Within nations and between them, inequality in Asia is more stark than
anywhere else in the world. Impoverished minorities in countries like India and
China, and the gap in governance and capacity within countries, whether as backward as Burma or as advanced as Singapore, present unique challenges. A traditional
approach to Asia will not suffice if the United States is to both protect American interests and help
iAsia realize its potential and avoid pitfalls. business and the Chinese government, along with
other Asian financial players, injected billions in capital to help steady U.S. investment banks such
as Merrill Lynch as the American subprime mortgage collapse unfolded. Chinese investment
funds regional industrialization, which in turn creates new markets for global products. Asia now
accounts for over 40 percent of global consumption of steel 4 and China is consuming almost half
of worlds available concrete. 5 Natural resources from soy to copper to oil are being used by
China and India at astonishing rates, driving up commodity prices and setting off alarm bells in
Washington and other Western capitals. Yet Asia is not a theater at peace. On average,
between 15 and 50 people die every day from causes tied to conflict, and
suspicions rooted in rivalry and nationalism run deep. The continent harbors
every traditional and non-traditional challenge of our age: it is a cauldron of
religious and ethnic tension; a source of terror and extremism; an accelerating
driver of the insatiable global appetite for energy; the place where the most people
will suffer the adverse effects of global climate change; the primary source of
nuclear proliferation; and the most likely theater on Earth for a major
Stefan Bauschard
19
conventional confrontation and even a nuclear conflict. Coexisting with the optimism of iAsia
are the ingredients for internal strife, non-traditional threats like terrorism, and
traditional interstate conflict, which are all magnified by the risk of
miscalculation or poor decision-making .
Stefan Bauschard
20
A2: No trade deals

TPA passage is key to sustain the global trade order
Suominen, Adjunct Fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, 8-4-14 (Kati, Adjunct Professor at the UCLA Anderson School of
Management, Coming Apart: WTO fiasco highlights urgency for the U.S. to lead the global
trading system,
Indias torpedoing last week the WTOs trade facilitation agreement, struck at the
last minute between the United States and India in the December 2013 WTO Ministerial in Bali, is a
death blow to the world body and adds to growing disarray in the global trading
system. Two threats are emerging. The first is disintegration of the trading system.
The core of the system until the mid-1990s, the WTO is utterly dysfunctional: deals require
unanimity among 160 members, making any cantankerous player like India a veto.
Aligning interests has been impossible, turning all action in global trade
policymaking to free trade agreements (FTAs), first kicked off by the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) in 1994. By now, 400 FTAs are in place or under negotiation. FTAs have been good cholesterol
for trade, but the overlapping deals and rules also complicate life for U.S.
companies doing global business. One single deal among all countries would be
much preferable to the spaghetti bowl of FTAs, but it is but a pie in the sky. So is
deeper liberalization by protectionist countries like India. The U.S.-led talks for
mega-regional agreements with Europe and Asia-Pacific nations, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), are the best solution yet to these problems.
They free trade and create uniform rules among countries making up two-thirds of
the world economy. Incidentally, they would create a million jobs in America. Yet both
hang in balance thanks to inaction on Capitol Hill to pass the Trade Promotion Authority
(TPA), the key piece of legislation for approving the mega-deals, now stuck in a bitter
political fight as several Democrats and Tea Party line up in opposition. TPA is key for the Obama
administration to conclude TPP and TTIP talks: Europeans and Asians are
unwilling to negotiate the thorniest topics before they know TPA is in place to
constrain U.S. Congress to voting up or down on these deals, rather than
amending freshly negotiated texts. The second threat in world trade is the absence of common rules of
the game for the 21st century global digital economy. As 3D printing, Internet of Things, and cross-border ecommerce,
and other disruptive technologies expand trade in digital goods and services, intellectual property will be fair game why
couldnt a company around the world simply replicate 3D printable products and designs Made in the USA? Another
problem is data protectionism rules on access and transport of data across borders. Europeans are imposing limits on
companies access to consumer data, complicating U.S. businesses customer service and marketing; emerging markets
such as Brazil and Vietnam are forcing foreign IT companies to locate servers and build data centers as a condition for
market access, measure that costs companies millions in inefficiencies. A growing number of countries claim limits on
access to data on the grounds of national security and public safety, familiar code words for protectionism. Digital
protectionism risks balkanizing the global virtual economy just as tariffs siloed national markets in the 19th century when
countries set out to collect revenue and promote infant industries a self-defeating approach that took well over a century
to undo, and is still alive and well in countries like India. The biggest losers of digital protectionism are American small
businesses and consumers leveraging their laptops, iPads and smart phones to buy and sell goods and services around
the planet. Trade policymakers however lag far behind todays trade, which requires sophisticated rules on IP, piracy,
copyrights, patents and trademarks, ecommerce, data flows, virtual currencies, and dispute settlement. The megaregionals, especially the TTIP, are a perfect venue to start this process. Disintegration of trade policies
risk disintegrating world markets. Just as after World War II, the global trading
system rests in Americas hands. Three things are needed. The first is the approval of TPA, which
unshackles U.S. negotiators to finalize TPP and TTIP. Most interesting for U.S.
exporters, TPP and TTIP almost de facto merge into a superdeal: the United States
and EU already have bilateral FTAs with several common partners belonging in
TPP Peru, Colombia, Chile, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and Mexico to name a few. Whats more, gatekeepers
Stefan Bauschard
21
to markets with two-thirds of global spending power, TPP and TTIP will be giant
magnetic docking stations to outsiders; China and Brazil, aiming to revive
sagging growth, are interested. Once this happens, the TTIP-TPP superdeal will
cover 80 percent of worlds output and approximate a multilateral agreement and
have cutting-edge common trade rules that could never be agreed in one Big
Bang at the WTO. Second, also needed is a shift negotiation of plurilateral agreements broad-based
agreements among sub-sets of WTO members now negotiated in trade in services and in environmental goods and
services, and proposed for investment and data security, and now also for trade facilitation sans India. The coalitions of
the willing driving plurilaterals include the United States, EU, Japan, and many Latin American and Asian emerging
markets disillusioned by India and its accomplices, Cuba, Bolivia, and Venezuela. A pivot in trade politics, China is looking
to join the services plurilateral. Plurilaterals not only help American companies to export more; they enable Washington
and its friends and allies to call the shots in global trade rulemaking and isolate India, proving its policies self-defeating.
The third deal that is needed is Washington Consensus II, for the global digital economy. In the 1990s, the Washington
Consensus set off a wave of deep trade and investment liberalization across the developing and post-communist world,
paving the way for a tidal wave of globalization. The digital economy has no equivalent. A broad group of stakeholders
and thought-leaders governments, international organizations, companies, and think-tanks need to come together to
articulate guidelines for nations behavior in the global digital economy. Given its infamous connotations, the digital deal
could be called Seoul Consensus, highlighting Koreas leap to a leader in digitization from a rural economy just a couple
of decades ago. U.S. leadership is urgently needed to integrate the rapidly changing
global trading system. It is time for Congress to step up to the plate.
Global trade deescalates every conflict

Sapiro 2014 Miriam, Visiting Fellow in the Global Economy and Development program,
former Deputy US Trade Representative, Why Trade Matters, September 2014,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/09/why%20trade%20matters/trade
%20global%20views_final.pdf
This policy brief explores the economic rationale and strategic imperative of an ambitious
domestic and global trade agenda from the perspective of the United States. International trade is often viewed
through the relatively narrow prism of trade-offs that might be made among domestic sectors or between trading partners,
but it is important to consider also the impact that increased trade has on global growth, development
and security. With that context in mind, this paper assesses the implications of the Asia-Pacific and
European trade negotiations underway, including for countries that are not participating but aspire
to join. It outlines some of the challenges that stand in the way of completion and ways in which they can be addressed.
It examines whether the focus on "mega-regional" trade agreements comes at the expense of broader liberalization or
acts as a catalyst to develop higher standards than might otherwise be possible. It concludes with policy
recommendations for action by governments, legislators and stakeholders to address concerns that have been raised and
create greater domestic support. It is fair to ask whether we should be concerned about the future of international trade
policy when dire developments are threatening the security interests of the United States and its partners in the Middle
East, Asia, Africa and Europe. In the Middle East, significant areas of Iraq have been overrun by a toxic
offshoot of Al-Qaeda, civil war in Syria rages with no end in sight, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process is in tatters. Nuclear negotiations with Iran have run into trouble, while Libya and Egypt face
continuing instability and domestic challenges. In Asia, historic rivalries and disputes over territory have
heightened tensions across the region, most acutely by China's aggressive moves in the South
China Sea towards Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines. Nuclear-armed North Korea remains isolated,
reckless and unpredictable. In Africa, countries are struggling with rising terrorism, violence and corruption. In
Europe, Russia continues to foment instability and destruction in eastern Ukraine. And within the
European Union, lagging economic recovery and the surge in support for extremist parties have left people fearful of
increasing violence against immigrants and minority groups and skeptical of further integration. It is tempting to focus
solely on these pressing problems and defer less urgent issuessuch as forging new disciplines for international trade
to another day, especially when such issues pose challenges of their own. But that would be a mistake. A key
motivation in building greater domestic and international consensus for advancing trade
liberalization now is precisely the role that greater economic integration can play in opening up
new avenues of opportunity for promoting development and increasing economic prosperity. Such
initiatives can help stabilize key regions and strengthen the security of the United States and its
partners. The last century provides a powerful example of how expanding trade relations can help
reduce global tensions and raise living standards. Following World War II, building stronger economic
cooperation was a centerpiece of allied efforts to erase battle scars and embrace former enemies.
In defeat, the economies of Germany, Italy and Japan faced ruin and people were on the verge of starvation. The United
States led efforts to rebuild Europe and to repair Japan's economy. A key element of the Marshall Plan, which established
Stefan Bauschard
22
the foundation for unprecedented growth and the level of European integration that exists today, was to revive trade by
reducing tariffs.1 Russia, and the eastern part of Europe that it controlled, refused to participate or receive such
assistance. De- cades later, as the Cold War ended, the United States and Western Europe sought to make up for lost
time by providing significant technical and financial assistance to help integrate central and eastern European countries
with the rest of Europe and the global economy. "There have been subsequent calls for a "Marshall Plan" for other parts of
the world,' although the confluence of dedicated resources, coordinated support and existing capacity has been difficult to
replicate. Nonetheless, important lessons have been learned about the valuable role economic
development can play in defusing tensions, and how opening markets can hasten growth. There is again a
growing recognition that economic security and national security are two sides of the same coin .
General Carter Ham, who stepped down is head of U.S. Africa Command last year, observed the close connection
between increasing prosperity and bolstering stability. During his time in Africa he had seen that "security and
stability in many ways depends a lot more on economic growth and opportunity than it does on
military strength."1 Where people have opportunities for themselves and their children, he found, the result was better
governance, increased respect for human rights and lower levels of conflict. During his confirmation hearing last year,
Secretary John Kerry stressed the link between economic and national security in the context of the competitiveness of
the United States but the point also has broader application. Our nation cannot be strong abroad, he argued, if it is not
strong at home, including by putting its own fiscal house in order. He assertedrightly sothat "more than ever
foreign policy is economic policy," particularly in light of increasing competition for global
resources and markets. Every day, he said, "that goes by where America is uncertain about
engaging in that arena, or unwilling to put our best foot forward and win, unwilling to demonstrate our resolve to
lead, is a day in which we weaken our nation itself."4 Strengthening America's economic security by
cementing its economic alliances is not simply an option, but an imperative. A strong nation needs a strong
economy that can generate growth, spur innovation and create jobs. This is true, of course, not only for the
United States but also for its key partners and the rest of the global trading system. Much as the
United States led the way in forging strong military alliances after World War II to discourage a
resurgence of militant nationalism in Europe or Asia, now is the time to place equal emphasis on
shoring up our collective economic security. A failure to act now could undermine international
security and place stability in key regions in further jeopardy.
Stefan Bauschard
23
A2: No TPP
TPP By the end of March
Kalyan Kumar, January 29, 2015, International Business Times, Trans Pacific Pact is Almost
Ready, Says Trade Official Even as Protests Rock New York, http://au.ibtimes.com/trans-pacificpact-almost-ready-says-us-trade-official-even-protests-rock-new-york-1415996 DOA: 1-29-15
TheTransPacificPartnershiptradepactinvolving12countriesisalmostready.AccordingtoatopU.S.
tradeofficial,theambitiousTPPwillbewrappedupinafewmonths.TheofficialalsourgedCongress
tobacktheObamaadministration'stradeagenda.MichaelFroman,theU.S.TradeRepresentativesaidthe
administrationislookingforwardtolawmakerstopassbipartisanlegislationforastreamlinedapproval
processontradedeals.SomebelievethattheTPPwillbewrappedupbymidMarch,reported
Reuters.
Stefan Bauschard
24
Iran
Stefan Bauschard
25
Shell
Irans top priority but Obamas PC holds off override now
Everett, 1/21/15
(Burgess, Democratic
Iran hawks hesitate on
overriding Obama; Obamas overtures to Senate Democrats

complicate matters for Republicans
working on sanctions bills,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/iran-senate-democrats-barack-obama-114467.html?hp=r1_4)
Republicans are eager to rumble with the White House over sanctions on Iran, but
they may have trouble getting President Barack Obamas Democratic critics to go along.
A day after Obama vowed to veto any bill that could jeopardize nuclear talks with Tehran, Republicans were working on
two pieces of legislation that could move in conjunction with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus address to
Congress on Feb. 11. But it quickly became clear that Republicans have a problem: Senate Democrats who
might not like Obamas policies on Iran but may not be ready to override their
president, especially after the forceful arguments he made in the State of the Union.
In interviews Wednesday, several Democrats who had supported a previous version of Iran
legislation sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) said they are reconsidering their
positions. Meanwhile, a previous version of an Iran bill offered by Sen. Bob Corker (RTenn.) did not have any Democratic co-sponsors.
Last week, at the Senate Democratic retreat in Baltimore, Obama forcefully made a
case against further Iran legislation. He did the same thing Tuesday night in front of
millions of Americans, saying he would veto any sanctions legislation because it would all but guarantee that diplomacy
fails.
Obamas words appear to be sinking in.

said
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). Im talking to colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
And I think they are thinking, and rethinking, their positions in light of the points
that the president and his team are making to us.
Asked if hes spoken directly to Obama about Iran, Blumenthal said: The president and his staff
Im considering very seriously the very cogent points that hes made in favor of delaying any congressional action,
are in touch with all of us.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said he is actively weighing the presidents position against Warners own belief that Congress
needs to keep pressure on Iran. Even the hawkish Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who said Wednesday that the
administrations comments sound like talking points straight from Tehran, was noncommittal on whether he would again
co-sponsor Iranian sanctions legislation that he once led. I have no idea yet, Menendez said.
The issue, said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, is one of timing. While Democrats and Republicans
alike want to be tough on Iran, the presidents party is more open to giving Obama
some breathing room.
Theres overwhelming support to toughen up the sanctions, said Schumer, a member of Democratic leadership who cosponsored sanctions legislation last year. The question is when. At times in the past the president asked for a little time,
until March. Thats something people are looking at.
Kirks bill would impose new sanctions if diplomatic talks fall apart or Iran violates an interim deal. Corkers would allow
Congress an up-or-down vote to reject or approve any final deal between the U.S. and its allies and Iran. Sources familiar
with the process in both chambers said Republicans have made no final decision on which bill will provide the base for the
legislation. Another option is merging versions of the two bills, though Corker doubted that would happen. The House is
also working on new sanctions legislation.
A decision is expected in the near future, with a vote perhaps as early as

February , given the support Iran legislation enjoys from Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
On the GOP bill to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Obama swiftly came out with a veto
threat because it was clear not enough Democrats in Congress would
vote to override him . Thats not the case for Iran: Sixty senators publicly
Stefan Bauschard
26
supported sanctions legislation in the last Congress, but it was widely believed
that more Democrats would have voted for the bill if it had come to the floor.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said the vote would be a nail-biter if
it were held today . But he expects enough Democrats to have
Obamas back to reject an override , whether on tightening sanctions or
requiring congressional approval for a nuclear deal.
If I had to be pushed, Id guess theres at least 34 that would say: This is
premature, we should wait, Durbin said in an interview. If theres anything that we would do that would
jeopardize the negotiations, I think many Democrats would oppose it.
Republicans think Democrats are bluffing and will be unable to oppose hardline legislation on Iran, whatever form it takes.
But they acknowledge
that its a tricky calculus to get to 67 votes when
the president is leaning so hard on Democrats to hold the line , which

might require legislation quite different from whats been proposed so far.
At some point, were going to get to the magic 67 and be able to override this veto, said Senate Majority Whip John
Cornyn (R-Texas). Were in the process of figuring out what that would look like to command the broadest possible
support in the Senate. And then well have that debate with the president.
Of course, the GOP may have further problems getting to 67 thanks to defections from
Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who have stayed away from new sanctions legislation.
While negotiations are going on, I worry that we will fracture our coalition, Flake said of Western nations that have
coordinated on Iran negotiations and sanctions. I want to keep that coalition together.
Secretary of State John Kerry aims to have a framework for a deal by March, so the race
is
on in the Senate to beat him to the punch. The Banking Committee postponed its
vote on the Kirk bill this week but will move swiftly next week with a hearing
Tuesday, a classified briefing from the administration on Jan. 28 and a committee vote Jan. 29,
Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said. Corker is also ramping up activity he held a hearing
on Iran on Wednesday and is moving toward developing a new draft bill.
Insert link
That directly trades-off with the political capital necessary
to prevent a veto override on Iran sanctions. Failure will
spur prolif and war with Iran.
Beauchamp, 11/6/14 --- B.A.s in Philosophy and Political Science from Brown University
and an M.Sc in International Relations from the London School of Economics, former editor of TP
Ideas and a reporter for ThinkProgress.org. He previously contributed to Andrew Sullivans The
Dish at Newsweek/Daily Beast, and has also written for Foreign Policy and Tablet magazines,
now writes for Vox (Zack, How the new GOP majority could destroy Obama's nuclear deal with
Iran, http://www.vox.com/2014/11/6/7164283/iran-nuclear-deal-congress)
There is one foreign policy issue on which the GOP's takeover of the Senate could have huge ramifications, and beyond
just the US: Republicans are likely to try to torpedo President Obama's ongoing efforts to
reach a nuclear deal with Iran. And they just might pull it off.
November 24 is the latest deadline for a final agreement between the United States and Iran over the latter's nuclear
program. That'll likely be extended, but it's a reminder that the negotiations could soon come to a head. Throughout
his presidency, Obama has prioritized these negotiations ; he likely doesn't want
to leave office without having made a deal.
But if Congress doesn't like the
deal, or just wants to see Obama lose, it has the

power to torpedo it by imposing new sanctions on Iran. Previously, Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid used procedural powers to stop this from happening and save the nuclear talks. But Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell may not be so kind, and he may have the votes to destroy an Iran deal. If he
Stefan Bauschard
27
tries, we could see one of the most important legislative fight s of

Obama's presidency.
Why Congress can bully Obama on Iran sanctions
At their most basic level, the international negotiations over Iran's nuclear program (they include several other nations, but
the US is the biggest player) are a tit-for-tat deal. If Iran agrees to place a series of verifiable limits on its nuclear
development, then the United States and the world will relax their painful economic and diplomatic sanctions on Tehran.
"The regime of economic sanctions against Iran is arguably the most complex the United States and the international
community have ever imposed on a rogue state," the Congressional Research Service's Dianne Rennack writes. To
underscore the point, Rennack's four-page report is accompanied by a list of every US sanction on Iran that goes on for
23 full pages.
The US's sanctions are a joint Congressional-executive production. Congress puts strict limits on Iran's ability to export oil
and do business with American companies, but it gives the president the power to waive sanctions if he thinks it's in the
American national interest. "In the collection of laws that are the statutory basis for the U.S. economic sanctions regime
on Iran," Rennack writes, "the President retains, in varying degrees, the authority to tighten and relax restrictions."
The key point here is that Congress gave Obama that power which means they
can take it back. "You could see a bill in place that makes it harder for the
administration to suspend sanctions," Ken Sofer, the Associate Director for
National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress
(where I worked for a little under two years, though not with Sofer directly), says. "You could also see a bill that says the
president can't agree to a deal unless it includes the following things or [a bill] forcing a congressional vote on any deal."
Imposing new sanctions on Iran wouldn't just stifle Obama's ability to remove
existing sanctions, it would undermine Obama's authority to negotiate with Iran at
all, sending the message to Tehran that Obama is not worth dealing with because
he can't control his own foreign policy.
So if Obama wants to make a deal with Iran, he needs Congress to
play ball . But it's not clear that Mitch McConnell's Senate wants to.
Congress could easily use its authority to kill an Iran deal
To understand why the new Senate is such a big deal for congressional action on sanctions, we have to jump back a year.
In November 2013, the Obama administration struck an interim deal with Iran called the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA). As
part of the JPOA, the US agreed to limited, temporary sanctions relief in exchange for Iran limiting nuclear program
components like uranium production.
Congressional Republicans, by and large, hate the JPOA deal. Arguing that the deal didn't place sufficiently serious limits
on Iran's nuclear growth, the House passed new sanctions on Iran in December. (There is also a line of argument, though
often less explicit, that the Iranian government cannot be trusted with any deal at all, and that US policy should focus on
coercing Iran into submission or unseating the Iranian government entirely.) Senate Republicans, joined by more hawkish
Democrats, had the votes to pass a similar bill. But in February, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid killed new Iran
sanctions, using the Majority Leader's power to block consideration of the sanctions legislation to prevent a vote.
McConnell blasted Reid's move. "There is no excuse for muzzling the Congress on an issue of this importance to our own
national security," he said. So now that McConnell holds the majority leader's gavel, it will remove that procedural
roadblock that stood between Obama and new Iran sanctions.
To be clear, it's far from guaranteed that Obama will be able to reach a deal with Iran at all; negotiations could fall apart
long before they reach the point of congressional involvement. But if he does reach a deal, and Congress doesn't like the
terms, then they'll be able to kill it by passing new sanctions legislation, or preventing Obama from temporarily waiving the
ones on the books.
And make no mistake imposing new sanctions or limiting Obama's authority to
waive the current ones would kill any deal. If Iran can't expect Obama to follow
through on his promises to relax sanctions, it has zero incentive to limit its
nuclear program. "If Congress adopts sanctions," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told Time last December,
"the entire deal is dead."
could fracture the international movement to sanction Iran .

The United States is far from Iran's biggest trading partner, so it depends on
international cooperation in order to ensure the sanctions bite. If it looks like the
US won't abide by the terms of a deal, the broad-based international
Moreover, it
sanctions regime could collapse . Europe, particularly, might decide that going along with the
sanctions is no longer worthwhile.
"Our ability to coerce Iran is largely based on whether or not the international community thinks that we are the ones that
are being constructive and [Iranians] are the ones that being obstructive," Sofer says. "If they don't believe that, then the
international sanctions regime falls apart."
This could be one of the biggest fights of Obama's last term
Stefan Bauschard
28
It's true that Obama could veto any Congressional efforts to blow up an Iran deal
with sanctions. But a two-thirds vote could override any veto and, according to Sofer,
an override is entirely within the realm of possibility.
"There are plenty of Democrats that will probably side with Republicans if they try to push a harder line on Iran," Sofer
says. For a variety of reasons, including deep skepticism of Iran's intentions and strong Democratic support for
Israel, whose government opposes the negotiations, Congressional
Democrats are not as open to

making a deal with Iran as Obama is. Many will likely defect to the GOP side out of
principle.
The real fight, Sofer says, will be among the Democrats those who are willing to
take the administration's side in theory, but don't necessarily think a deal with Iran
is legislative priority number one, and maybe don't want to open themselves up to
the political risk. These Democrats "can make it harder: you can filibuster, if
you're Obama you can veto you can make it impossible for a full bill to be passed out of Congress on
Iran," Sofer says. But it'd be a really tough battle, one that would consume
a lot of energy and lobbying effort that Democrats might prefer to
spend pushing on other issues.
"I'm not really sure they're going to be willing to take on a fight about an Iran sanctions bill," Sofer concludes. "I'm not
really sure that the Democrats who support [a deal] are really fully behind it enough that they'll be willing to give up
leverage on, you know, unemployment insurance or immigration status these bigger issues for most Democrats."
So if
the new Republican Senate prioritizes destroying an Iran deal, Obama will
have to fight very hard to keep it without necessarily being able to

count on his own party for support. And the stakes are enormous: if Iran's
nuclear program isn't stopped peacefully, then the most likely
outcomes are either Iran going nuclear, or war with Iran .
The administration believes a deal with Iran is their only way to avoid this horrible
choice. That's why it's been one of the administration's top priorities since
day one. It's also why this could become one of the biggest legislative fights of Obama's last two years.
Nuke war
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
six-power negotiations with

Tehran to curb Irans nuclear programme may yet succeed or fail. But wrangling between the US and
The who-said-what game about last weekends talks in Geneva has become a distraction. The
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
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
first of these is that
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,
Stefan Bauschard
29
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.
Yes war and extinction

Wittner 11 Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany "Is a Nuclear
War With China Possible?" 11/30/2011 www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/nuclear-warchina_b_1116556.html
While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be
used.
their
After all, for
centuries international conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing
deadliest weapons . The current deterioration of U.S. relations with
China might end up providing us with yet another example of this phenomenon.The gathering
tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by China's growing economic
and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged China's claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military
presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, the United States was "asserting our own position as a Pacific power." But
need this lead to
nuclear war? Not necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could . After all, both the United
States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons . The U.S. government
threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during their conflict over the future of China's
offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and
chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would "be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or
anything else."Of course, China didn't have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national
leaders will be more temperate. But the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials
during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the
military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists . Some pundits
argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there haven't been
very many -- at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan,
should convince us that such wars can occur . Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost
slipped into a nuclear war . Pakistan's foreign secretary threatened that, if the
war escalated, his country felt free to use "any weapon" in its arsenal . During the conflict,
Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its
own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan.At the least, though, don't nuclear weapons deter a nuclear
attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didn't feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO's strategy was to
respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a
Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government
officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to
Stefan Bauschard
30
championing "Star Wars" and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these
vastly expensive -- and probably unworkable -- military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from
attacking by U.S. nuclear might?Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that
nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S.
nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart . Today, it is estimated that the U.S.
government possesses over 5,000 nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly 300.
Moreover, only about 40 of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would "win" any
nuclear war with China.But what would that "victory" entail? An attack with these Chinese
nuclear weapons would immediately slaughter at least 10 million

Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of
sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far
higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive
wastelands . Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot
out the sun and bring on a " nuclear winter" around the globe
agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction.
-- destroying
Stefan Bauschard
31
UQ
Netanyahu visit has reduced support for the sanctions
Dana Milbank, 1-27-15, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/danamilbank-republicans-discover-that-it-isnt-easy-running-congress/201 DOA: 1-29-15
Atthesametime,Boehnermanagedtoprovokeaninternationalincident,andsplittheAmerican
Jewishcommunity,byinvitingIsraeliPrimeMinisterBenjaminNetanyahutoaddressCongress
on
theeveoftheIsraelielectionswithoutconsultingtheWhiteHouse.Theinvitation,intendedto
boostprospectsfortoughnewsanctionsagainstIran,seemsinsteadtohaveemboldenedopposition
tothesanctions.IntheSenate,meanwhile,Democratsusedproceduralpowerstodelaypassageofthe
KeystoneXLpipelinebillnewmajorityleaderMitchMcConnellstoppriorityafterMcConnell
retreatedonhispromisetoallowfreewheelingamendments.
Obama has Dems to sustain veto now

Tzvi Kahn, 1-22-15, Kahn is a senior policy analyst at the Foreign Policy Initiative,
USNEWS.com, Obama Presents False Choice on Iran Nuclear Deal,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/01/22/obama-presents-false-choice-oniran-nuclear-deal DOA: 1-22-15
"Congress should be aware," Obama declared last week, "that if this diplomatic solution
fails, then the risks and likelihood that this ends up being at some point a military
confrontation is heightened, and Congress will have to own that as well, and that will have to
be debated by the American people." As a tactical matter, tarring his opponents as
warmongers once again may still succeed in persuading vacillating Democratic lawmakers
to double down on the president's approach and uphold his threatened veto of new
sanctions legislation. This time, however, Congress can debate the strategy with the benefit of
more than a year of evidence that it has brought no progress.
Support for sanctions is weakening now

Ben-Ami, 1/23/15 --- president and founder of J Street, which advocates for a two-state
resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Jeremy, Iranian sanctions support weakening,
http://chicago.suntimes.com/other-views/7/71/316331/iranian-sanctions-support-weakening)
This weeks surprise announcement that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit
Washington to address a joint session of Congress has been framed as yet another showdown
between the current Israeli government and the White House, in particular, over their dueling
strategies on how to prevent a nucleararmed Iran.
But when t he prime minister arrives in the United States, he will encounter a
broad public consensus that supports the diplomatic approach advanced by

the U.S. administration as the best means to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons,
and opposes legislating new sanctions while negotiations are ongoing.
Indeed, within 24 hours of President Obamas State of the Union address, it became
clear that there is far less support for new sanctions than some observers
perhaps expected .
In his speech, the President rightly touted the positive effect of the November 2013 interim
agreement with Iran, which rolled back some of the most concerning aspects of Irans nuclear
Stefan Bauschard
32
program, and noted that world powers now have a chance to negotiate a final agreement that
would ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.
But he warned that he would not hesitate to veto any new sanctions bill, which would all but
guarantee that diplomacy fails alienating America from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts
up its nuclear program again.
In a matter of hours, the Presidents sentiments were echoed by former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, who called new sanctions a very serious, strategic error, and by top Congressional
Democrats like Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senator Barbara Boxer.
And in the Washington Post, the foreign affairs chiefs of the European Union, the United
Kingdom, Germany and France wrote together that rather than strengthening our negotiating
position, new sanctions legislation at this point would set us back. Reports even emerged on
Wednesday night that officials from the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad may have gotten
involved, informing the White House and Members of Congress that new sanctions would cause
the Iran talks to collapse.
The strong case against new sanctions appears to be making a

difference on Capitol Hill, where a crop of alternative bills is now emerging with
more bipartisan support. That the sanctions bills are struggling to
get off the ground is significant. Not long ago, when Iran still refused to negotiate,
sanctions legislation regularly passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support.
But today, more and more lawmakers understand that these negotiations have
changed the equation . While there may come a time in the future when more sanctions
become necessary if talks fail, or if Iran violates a final deal moving forward with legislation
at this time would be dangerous and counterproductive to our interests.
It would also give the staunchest Iranian hardliners exactly what they want. Just as these
negotiations have challenged our own politics, Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken testified
this week that Iran is not immune to politics, either.
Current Iran sanctions succeeded in bringing Iran to the negotiating table, delaying the possibility
of military confrontation and creating an opening for a diplomatic resolution of this crisis. This has
pitted moderates who support a deal, like Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, against more
conservative rivals who are looking for any excuse to kill the talks. How this political struggle
plays out may very well depend on the clear choices facing Congressional lawmakers in the
coming weeks.
As President Obama and others have argued, we dont yet know whether these
negotiations with Iran will produce a deal. But we do know what will happen if
they fail: Iranian hardliners will grow stronger , Iran will resume and even
expand its most concerning nuclear activities, and the Middle East will inch
closer to a war that would put Israel and other allies in jeopardy. That risk
alone makes this diplomacy worth it, and makes efforts to sabotage it with new
sanctions all the more irresponsible.
No override now, but continued PC is key

Wong, 1/15/15 (Kristina, Expert: Obama to veto new Iran sanctions,
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/229718-expert-obama-near-certain-to-veto-new-iran-sanctions)
"If the Congress passes a new sanctions bill that the administration considers
damaging to prospects for negotiations, President Obama is very likely to veto it,"
wrote Robert Einhorn, former State Department adviser for nonproliferation and
arms control, in the National Interest on Wednesday.
Stefan Bauschard
33
"Senior administration officials would then go into overdrive in finding the

34 Senate votes necessary to sustain the veto ," wrote Einhorn, a senior
fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Einhorn predicted that some Democrats will vote to override the veto, but it is "likely that the
administration will have the votes to sustain the veto and prevent
legislation potentially damaging to the negotiations from being enacted."
"While the Republican-controlled Congress will undoubtedly give the
administration a tough time, it is likely that President Obama will be able, without
legislative interference, to continue negotiating an agreement that he believes is
in the U.S. interest," Einhorn wrote.
Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) are preparing to introduce a new bill that would impose sanctions
on Iran if it walks away from international negotiations to limit its nuclear program, or if it violates any agreement reached
by a June 30 deadline.
The senators completed the proposed legislation this week, and plan to introduce the bill before a deal is reached,
Bloomberg reported. The Obama administration opposes the bill, and any legislation that could scuttle a deal with Iran to
prevent its development of a nuclear weapon.
House members overwhelmingly passed an earlier version of the bill in 2013, but a bill in the Senate was held up by thenMajority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), out of deference to the White House.
The president pledged in his 2014 State of the Union address to veto any Iran sanctions bill that Congress sent to him.
New Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has promised to bring the legislation, which has the backing of a majority of
senators, for a vote this year.
Earlier this week, the White House reiterated its "strong opposition to additional
sanctions legislation that could derail the negotiations and isolate the United
States from our international coalition."
Obama can swing key senators. This ev is the best to

analyze vote counts.
Diamond, 1/9/15 (Jeremy, New Congress, new nuclear showdown over Iran,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/09/politics/iran-sanctions-fight-republican-congress/)
Washington (CNN) Iranian
and American negotiators preparing to square off in Geneva next week over Iran's
nuclear ambitions will also be eying another showdown brewing in Washington.

One year after a Republican-led coalition in the Senate came up just short of a deal, GOP lawmakers are poised to wield their new power in
the new 54-member majority doesn't

guarantee that Republicans can muster the 67 votes they need to override a
presidential veto, and the fight is already underway for the votes that
the Senate to push a bill authorizing additional sanctions against Iran. But
could fill the gap .

With fewer than two months until diplomats' March 1 framework agreement
deadline, and expecting the White House to start knocking on swing
senators' doors , supporters know the clock is ticking to pass a sanctions bill
they say will ratchet up pressure on Iran. But for opponents of additional sanctions, the ticking is
more like a time bomb as a sanctions bill will torpedo negotiations and
set the U.S. on a path to war with Iran , they claim.
For Sen. Mark Kirk, the Republican half of the Kirk-Menendez sanctions bill he has pushed for the last three years, the sooner a sanctions
bill hits the Senate floor, the better -- both politically and policy-wise.
"If the Senate was allowed to vote tomorrow, I would be able to get two-thirds," Kirk said Sunday in a phone interview. "Now is the time to
put pressure on Iran especially with oil prices so low. We are uniquely advantaged at this time to shut down this nuclear program."
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), another major proponent of the legislation, told CNN last month the Kirk-Menendez bill "will come
up for a vote in January," a pledge he made the same day to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a meeting in Jerusalem.
A McConnell
spokesman called the legislation "a priority," but said there isn't yet a schedule for a sanctions bill.
Kirk said he backed that timing but insisted that it depends on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Republicans have been clamoring for additional sanctions on Iran, but with control of Congress in their hands, Republican lawmakers will
also have to own the consequences of sanctions legislation -- which the President, State Department and Iranian officials have warned
could derail negotiations.
Stefan Bauschard
34
"We have long believed that Congress should not consider any new sanctions while negotiations are underway, in order to give our
negotiators the time and space they need to fully test the current diplomatic opportunity. New sanctions threaten the diplomatic process
currently underway," a senior administration official told CNN.
The Kirk-Menendez bill that died in the Senate last year would reimpose sanctions on Iran if
Obama couldn't certify that Iran doesn't finance terror groups that have attacked
Americans and would keep Iran from maintaining low-level nuclear enrichment in
a final deal, just a few terms that are much stricter than the current framework for negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 world
powers.
Those congressional provisions are "poison pills," according to Dylan Williams,

head of government affairs at J Street, a group that bills itself as pro-Israel . It lobbied
heavily on the issue last year and is ramping up for another forceful push.
"We know that

many if not most of the people pushing for legislation don't want diplomacy to
work."
"All of these things are poison pills, far from the clean sanctions, just-if-things-go-wrong idea," Williams said.
J Street challenges the Israel lobby from within

Kirk has already been working with Sen. Bob Menendez, of New Jersey, his Democratic partner on the bill, to rework some of its language
-- changes that could potentially draw more Democratic support. The pair are still working on final language for the bill, which drew 59
cosponsors last year, though Kirk said he is working to stave off as many changes as possible -- "The more changes, the worse," he said.
The Illinois Republican expects a high-profile challenge from the White

House and its allies , but he will be getting his own backup from some Capitol Hill heavyweights: the American-Israel
Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, which typically spends more than $2.5 million a year on lobbying, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics.
"I think they're pretty damned strong. This would be the No. 1 thing for them," Kirk said of AIPAC.
Intense lobbying from AIPAC could help the sanctions supporters win back the
four Democrats who joined 13 others in cosponsoring the sanctions bill last year,
but later backtracked their support.
Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Chris
Coons of Delaware rejected the idea of moving forward amid negotiations after the
White House and allies made its push on Capitol Hill to keep the
measure from a floor vote .
"I did not sign it with the intention that it would ever be voted upon or used upon while we were negotiating," Manchin said on MSNBC after
Obama talked about Iran in his State of the Union address. "I signed it because I wanted to make sure the president had a hammer if he
needed it and showed them how determined we were to do it and use it if we had to."
After talks failed to materialize into an agreement by the November 2014 deadline, some Democrats have started to lose patience with the
stop-and-stall pace of negotiations with Iran and are facing pressure from groups like AIPAC to support a sanctions bill, though the White
House insists the negotiations have yielded tangible results: rolling back Iran's nuclear program during negotiations.
But
even if Kirk, Menendez and their allies can pressure those four Democrats
into signing on, they will need to pull three more Senate Democrats
who didn't cosponsor the bill last year to secure the 15 Democrats needed to
override a presidential veto.
And they won't just be targeted by AIPAC. A coalition of dove organizations is already putting the gears in motion for what they expect to be
the toughest battle yet on this issue, and while they're clear-eyed about the uphill climb they face, they dismiss the overconfident stride of
pro-sanctions leaders.
These groups will look to paint any new sanctions as a step onto the warpath with Iran and show wary Democrats that they have the
grassroots backing to stave off attacks from groups like AIPAC.
Clinton defends Obama on Iran talks
More than 400 faith leaders and activists traveled to D.C. in late November to
lobby Congress against the sanctions in a day of action organized by the Friends
Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker-founded organization, and the group plans to drive its 50,000
supporters to flood Congress with calls and letters in the weeks ahead.
"The real trick that we have to do is really to make that opposition -- both in the
public and that opposition on the Hill -- to really make it become public and to
amplify those voices," said Kate Gould, the group's lead lobbyist on the issue.
"Because right now you hear from, it's Lindsey Graham and (Marco) Rubio, who are
very confident in their prognosis and have made it sound like it's inevitable that these sanctions will pass
with a veto-proof majority."
Stefan Bauschard
35
To accomplish that, FCNL has worked with other groups like J Street and about 70 other groups in an expanding coalition opposing the
sanctions in an effort to paint the debate not as a benchmark for support for Israel, but rather what Gould calls a "wider, anti-war issue" that
resonates with a war-weary public.
Their ev is just a reason Obama must remain strong to

lobby Congress
Wong, 1/19/15 (Kristina, Iran fight tests Obamas clout ,
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/229998-iran-fight-tests-obamas-clout)
Supporters of Iran sanctions legislation are betting they can secure the 67 Senate votes needed to override a veto from
President Obama.
Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) are moving quickly to bring their bill to
the floor, defying warnings from administration officials who say the legislation could blow up the negotiations with
Iran over its nuclear program.
We have a fighting chance of getting strong, overwhelming support as we have in the past, a senior congressional aide
said Monday.
The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee is planning to debate and vote on the sanctions bill Thursday.
While its not clear when the bill could come up for a floor vote, senators say Majority Leader Mitch
Ky.)
McConnell
(R-
wants to act on it very quickly.
White House officials vehemently oppose the legislation, fearing it could sink the chances of reaching a long-term deal to
dismantle Irans nuclear program.
Proponents of the sanctions bill have taken issue with the White Houses arguments, noting that the punishments would
only take effect if Iran walked away from the talks or violated the terms of a deal.
The White House might have to exert heavy pressure on Senate

Democrats when the Iran bill hits the Senate floor.
If all 54 Senate Republicans voted for the sanctions bill, they would need only 13 Democrats to secure a veto-proof
majority. Twelve Democrats, including Menendez, co-sponsored an earlier version of the legislation and still serve in the
Senate.
The legislative fight has stoked tensions between Obama and Menendez, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations
Committee, who was angered by the presidents move last year to ease travel and trade restrictions on Cuba.
The two men had a forceful exchange during a Senate Democratic retreat Friday, with Obama reportedly urging
senators against actions for short-term political gain, according to The New York Times. Menendez reportedly stood up
and said he took personal offense.
Supporters of the sanctions bill stopped short of predicting victory

but said they are moving forward with a veto-proof majority in mind.
Were going for a law. ... Weve had longstanding bipartisan engagement on this issue, the aide said, pointing to four
previous instances when Congress has passed sanctions legislation with more than enough votes to overcome a veto.
Both sides of the debate agree it will be a close fight , with all eyes on the
Democrats who are likely to break with the White House.
Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) an original co-sponsor of sanctions legislation, told Bloomberg last week he supports moving
forward on the bill before the June 30 deadline for finishing the talks.
Casey and three other Democratic co-sponsors of the original bill recently sounded a hawkish tone on Iran sanctions,
voicing concerns that the regime has been violating the sanctions already in place.
As we continue our diplomatic efforts, it is vitally important that existing U.S. sanctions continue to be strictly enforced,
wrote Casey and Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in a Jan.
2 letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.
Schumer, a strong backer of the Menendez-Kirk bill and strong supporter of Israel, has previously whipped votes for the
sanctions bill.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), another original co-sponsor, said Sunday he also supports imposing sanctions but was vague
on what timing he would prefer.
The senior congressional aide said proponents are not taking any Democratic votes for granted, regardless of whether a
senator has backed sanctions legislation in the past.
The votes are what count at the end of the day. And, unlike last year,
its a certainty that senators
will vote on Iran soon , the aide said.

It isnt certain that the sanctions bill would get unanimous support from
Republicans.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday on NBCs Meet the Press he would agree to table the bill if Obama agrees
to let Congress approve or disapprove of any deal.
Stefan Bauschard
36
Obama will win battle over Iran sanctions and prevent

veto override
Nakashima, 1/21/15 --- national security reporter for The Washington Post (Ellen,
Administration and lawmakers clash over Iran policy,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/administration-and-lawmakers-clash-overiran-policy/2015/01/21/e8be448a-a1a2-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html)
The determination of a group of bipartisan lawmakers to pass measures they

believe will raise pressure on Iran escalates a high-stakes battle with the
Obama administration. The White House has warned that new sanctions will scuttle hopes of reaching an agreement
with Iran and unravel an international coalition enforcing existing sanctions.
But members of Congress, including Obamas nominal Democratic allies on

foreign policy, expressed no willingness on Wednesday to cede the issue of how to
best deal with Iran in the run-up to the July deadline for the talks.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, wants the administration to submit any final
deal to Congress for approval. Other key lawmakers want legislation that would impose a series of escalating penalties
should the talks fail. Still others suggested a nonbinding resolution stating Congresss intent to impose crippling sanctions
if negotiations fail. Whatever the approach, members from both sides of the aisle are insisting on a role in shaping the
outcome of the talks, pushing back against the administrations appeal to give diplomacy room to work.
Over the past 18 months, we have been moving closer to their [the Iranians] positions on all key elements, said Sen.
Robert Menendez, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, at a testy three-hour hearing. The more I
hear from the administration in its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Iran.
Administration officials insisted that further sanctions or other pressure would only risk undermining the diplomatic effort
by the world powers. I know the intent is to further increase pressure on Iran and, in so doing, strengthen the hand of our
negotiators, Deputy Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said. But, he said, the administration believes that additional
sanctions are unnecessary at this time and risk unraveling the current sanctions regime. Iran is well aware that the
sword of Damocles hangs over its head, he said. It needs no new sanctions.
Menendez has drafted legislation with Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, who sits on the Banking Committee, that
would not impose sanctions for the duration of the talks. But if the negotiations fail, the bill would reimpose sanctions lifted
in the interim and escalate them in a series of steps.
The high emotions on display during the hearing suggest that both sides are
girding for an all-out effort on the issue . As the hearing proceeded, on the other side of
the Capitol, aides to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that he is inviting Israel Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress on Feb. 11 on the threats posed by Iran and radical Islam.
Netanyahu has been skeptical of the talks and has taken the position that any agreement should not leave Iran as a
nuclear threshold country, one that could move to acquire nuclear weapons quickly.
Clearly, theres a majority in Congress in support of additional sanctions, said Robert Einhorn, a senior fellow
at the Brookings Institution and a former member of the U.S. team negotiating with Iran. But whether they have the
67 votes to override a veto is another story. The administration will go all out to gain the
necessary 34 votes to sustain a veto.
Even Corker admits

Zengerle, 1/15/15 (Patricia, Despite White House Warnings, Congress Will Push Ahead
With Iran Sanctions, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/iran-sanctions_n_6474642.html,
JMP)
WASHINGTON, Jan 14 (Reuters) - Republican
and Democratic U.S. lawmakers will press

ahead with a plan for more sanctions on Iran, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee said on Wednesday, despite White House warnings that they risked derailing nuclear talks.
Lawmakers, who say they fear Obama administration negotiators may not take a hard enough line with Tehran, are also at
work on a separate bill to have Congress approve any final agreement on Iran's nuclear program, Senator Bob Corker,
the chairman, told Reuters in an interview.
"There's continual efforts to try to figure out a way for Congress to play a role to strengthen whatever final deal may
occur," the Tennessee Republican senator said.
Republican Senator Mark Kirk and Democratic Senator Robert Menendez are finalizing a bill for tougher sanctions on Iran
if there is no final nuclear deal by June 30.
The Senate Banking Committee is due to hold a hearing on Iran sanctions on Tuesday, said Corker, a member also of that
panel.
Stefan Bauschard
37
Kirk and Menendez introduced a sanctions bill in December 2013, but it did not come up for a vote in the Senate, then
controlled by President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats, who lost control of the chamber because of big losses in
November elections.
The White House has insisted passage of a sanctions bill now - even one that would impose
new restrictions only if there is no deal by the deadline - could
prompt Iran to back out of the nuclear

talks with six world powers.
Although Republicans now hold a 54-46 seat majority in the Senate, Corker said
he did not know if there would be enough votes - 67 - needed in the Senate to
override an Obama veto of any Iran legislation.
Even if theres some opposition, it isnt sufficient to

override the veto
Kristina Wong 1/15, "Expert: Obama to veto new Iran sanctions," 1-15-2015, TheHill,
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/229718-expert-obama-near-certain-to-veto-new-iran-sanctions,
DOA: 1-21-2015, y2k
***Einhorn: A senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a former senior member of the Iran
nuclear negating tem, and a former adviser for nonproliferation and arms control
President
Obama will "very likely" veto any bill that would impose new
sanctions on Iran, according to a former senior member of his Iran nuclear

negotiations team. "If the Congress passes a new sanctions bill that the administration considers damaging to
prospects for negotiations, President Obama is very likely to veto it," wrote Robert Einhorn, former State
Department adviser for nonproliferation and arms control, in the National Interest on
Wednesday. "Senior administration officials would then go into overdrive in finding
the 34 Senate votes necessary to sustain the veto ," wrote Einhorn, a senior fellow at the
Brookings Institution. Einhorn
predicted that some
Democrats will
vote to override the veto,
but it is "likely that the administration will have the votes to

sustain the veto
and prevent legislation potentially damaging to the negotiations from being enacted."
"While the Republican-controlled Congress will undoubtedly give the

administration a tough time , it is likely that President Obama will be able, without legislative
interference, to
continue negotiating an agreement that he believes is in the U.S. interest," Einhorn wrote.
Obama has a breathing room

Burgess Everett 1/21, POLITICO Staff, "Democratic Iran hawks hesitate on overriding
Obama," 1-21-2015, POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/iran-senate-democratsbarack-obama-114467.html, DOA: 1-22-2015, y2k
Republicans are eager to rumble with the White House over sanctions on Iran, but
they may have trouble getting President Barack Obamas Democratic critics to
go along . A day after Obama vowed to veto any bill that could jeopardize nuclear talks with Tehran, Republicans
were working on two pieces of legislation that could move in conjunction with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus
address to Congress on Feb. 11. But it quickly became clear that Republicans have a problem: Senate
Democrats who might not like Obamas policies on Iran but may not be ready
to override
president , especially after the forceful arguments he made in the

Democrats who had supported a previous
version of Iran legislation sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) said they are reconsidering their
their
State of the Union. In interviews Wednesday, several
Stefan Bauschard
38
positions . Meanwhile, a previous version of an Iran bill offered by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) did not have any
Democratic co-sponsors. Last week, at the Senate Democratic retreat in Baltimore, Obama forcefully made a case
against further Iran legislation. He did the same thing Tuesday night in front of millions of Americans, saying he would veto
any sanctions legislation because it would all but guarantee that diplomacy fails.
appear to be sinking in.
Obamas words
Im considering very seriously the very cogent points that hes made in favor
of delaying any congressional action, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). Im
talking to colleagues
on both sides of the aisle . And I think they are thinking, and rethinking, their positions in light of the
points that the president and his team are making to us. Asked if hes spoken directly to Obama about Iran, Blumenthal
said:
The president and his staff are in touch with all of us.
Sen. Mark
Warner (D-Va.) said he is actively weighing the presidents position against Warners own belief that Congress needs to
keep pressure on Iran. Even the hawkish Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who said Wednesday that the administrations
comments sound like talking points straight from Tehran, was noncommittal on whether he would again co-sponsor
Iranian sanctions legislation that he once led. I have no idea yet, Menendez said. The issue, said Sen. Chuck Schumer
of New York, is one of timing. While Democrats and Republicans alike want to be tough on Iran,
the
presidents party is more open to giving Obama some breathing

room.
Your Johnson evidence is concludes neg

Fawn Johnson 1/20, National Journal Staff, "Iran Bill Could Prompt Obama's First Veto
Override," 1-20-2015, nationaljournal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/iran-bill-couldprompt-obama-s-first-veto-override-20150120, DOA: 1-21-2015, y2k
A potential showdown is looming between Senate Democrats and the White

House over Iran , one that could lead to the first successful veto override of President Obama's tenure. On one
side are Hill Democrats whoalong with Republicanswant to weigh in on Iran's nuclear
program. On the other is the White House , which has said that any
statement from Congress would jeopardize a long-term deal to dismantle the country's
nuclear capabilities. Obama has vowed to veto any legislation that imposes sanctions,
urging Congress to " hold your fire " while talks continue. Twelve Democrats in the Senate
have in the past cosponsored legislation to impose sanctions on Iran. If they all
continue to call for the sanctions, it would put the Senate close to the twothirds majority necessary to override Obama's veto;
supporters would need just
one more vote if all 54 Republicans support the bill. Obama has vetoed only two bills in six years, and neither was
overridden. More vetoes are likely on tap now that Republicans control both chambers of Congresson issues ranging
from the Keystone XL pipeline to Obama's executive actions on immigrationbut no current issue other than Iran seems
as likely to attract the number of Democrats necessary for an override. Democrats who favor more sanctions on Iran say
they need hard details from the administration about the progress it has made in two years of talks. How many reactors
are still functioning? How much uranium do the Iranians have? "Are they allowing full access? Just someone give me an
update. Help us make a decision on the bill," said Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who has supported
sanctions in the past but is undecided on how he will vote when the Senate takes up a sanctions bill later this month.
Democrats aren't yet willing to
discuss
buck ing Obama
in such a public fashion,
according to aides, but the possibility is certainly there . It's difficult for any
lawmaker to vote against a punishment for Iran, and those who are frustrated with how the
talks are going could egg everyone else on. "I think there are some who are more anxious, want to create some incentive
for the Iranians to do the right thing, putting pressure on them prospectively," said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of
Illinois. "Others, like myself, feel like this is once-in-a-political-lifetime opportunity. I just don't want to jeopardize
negotiations." Asked if a sizable number of Democrats would vote against Obama's wishes on the issue, Durbin would
only say, "The operative word there is 'sizable.'" Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey is leading the charge among
Democrats who want Iran sanctions. He will get the chance Wednesday to lay out his argument for imposing sanctions if
the talks with Iran fail. As the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Menendez will have his best
Stefan Bauschard
39
opportunity yet to air his concerns that the talks have dragged on for too long (since 2013) with the United States having
little to show for it. The Foreign Relations Committee will receive a formal update Wednesday from State and Treasury
Department officials at a hearing on the Iran nuclear talks. Later in the day, the Senate Banking Committee will have a
classified briefing on the same topic, according to Chairman Richard Shelby of Alabama. Any Iran-sanctions
bill must ultimately go through the Banking Committee, but the Foreign Relations panel
offers the first peek at the intensity of the conflict between Democrats who favor
sanctions and the White House. Menendez, with Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, is proposing new
sanctions that would not take effect until July, a deadline that the United States, Iran, and several European countries
have already agreed to for reaching a deal.
Stefan Bauschard
40
Iran Top of the Agenda

Iran is next nothing before it
Johnson, 1/18/15 (Fawn, Slow Keystone Debate Will Heat Up This Week National Journal,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/slow-keystone-debate-will-heat-up-this-week-20150118)
Senators are bracing for an Iran-sanctions bill that could be next up on the
Senate floor after Keystone . The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will get the
ball rolling on Thursday at a hearing on Iran's nuclear program. Lawmakers will get an update
from Antony Blinken, the deputy secretary of State, and David Cohen, the undersecretary for
terrorism and financial intelligence at Treasury. Committee Chairman Bob Corker says he expects
a sanctions bill to be on the Senate floor in a few weeks.
Last week, President Obama said he would veto the bill. The administration is warning members
of Congress that passing additional sanctions would jeopardize the ongoing negotiations, which
were extended until July. Despite these protests, there is still bipartisan concern that Iran won't
comply with a final deal.
No thumpers Iran first

Volsky, 1/21/15 (Igor, Obama Threatens To Veto Congressional Efforts To Derail
Negotiations With Iran, http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/21/3613634/obama-congressmust-not-derail-iran-negotiations/)
President Barack Obama threatened to veto any additional sanctions against Iran
during his fifth State of the Union address Tuesday, urging Congress to give diplomacy a chance
to succeed in rolling back Irans nuclear program.
If this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto
it, he said, before conceding that if Irans leaders do not seize this opportunity, then I will be the
first to call for more sanctions, and stand ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not
build a nuclear weapon.
Negotiators between Iran, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the U.S. will continue
next month and will have until March 1 to develop a political framework and reach a final deal by
July 1.
Obamas veto threat was immediately rebuked by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), co-sponsor
of a bipartisan sanctions bill spearheaded by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ). Under the
measure, Obama would be able to delay sanctions on Iranian petroleum and mining industries if
a deal is at hand, but they would go into effect should the talks ultimately break down.
In the next few weeks, I believe we will pass the bipartisan Kirk-Menendez bill to give our
children an insurance policy against a nuclear war in the Middle East, Kirk said in his reaction to
Obamas address. House Speaker John Boehner (R) also released a letter on Wednesday
inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress on
February 11th to address the growing threat from Iran.
The president and his supporters have argued that the interim agreement that has frozen Irans
nuclear program, rolled back its stockpiles of enriched uranium and paved the way for the current
negotiations, prohibits the United States from initiating new sanctions and that even a timeline for
imposing additional restrictions would provide Irans hardliners with an excuse to end the
negotiations potentially moving the two nations closer to a military confrontation.
Last week, UK Prime Minister David Cameron began calling U.S. senators informing them that
its the opinion of the United Kingdom that further sanctions, or further threat of sanctions, at this
point wont actually help and could actually fracture the international coalition negotiating with
Iran.
Stefan Bauschard
41
Still, the measure is likely to see a vote in Congress in the coming days . The
Banking Committee is expected to vote on sanctions next week and the bill
could move to the Senate floor in February. Twelve Senate Democrats have
previously cosponsored efforts to impose additional sanctions on Iran, meaning
the chamber could be close to the two-thirds majority needed to override a
presidential veto.
Stefan Bauschard
42
PC U/IL
All out push to stop sanctions legislation
Ellen Nakashima, 1-22-15, The Washington Post, lawmakers clash over Iran policy,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/administration-and-lawmakers-clash-overiran-policy/2015/01/21/e8be448a-a1a2-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html DOA: 1-26-15
Menendez, of New Jersey, has drafted legislation with Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, who
sits on the Banking Committee, that would not impose sanctions for the duration of the talks. But
if the negotiations fail, the bill would reimpose sanctions lifted in the interim and escalate them in
a series of steps. The high emotions on display during the hearing suggest that both sides are
girding for battle. As the hearing proceeded, on the other side of the Capitol, aides to House
Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that he is inviting Israel Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress on Feb. 11 on the threats posed by Iran and
radical Islam. Netanyahu has been skeptical of the talks and has taken the position that any
agreement should not leave Iran as a "nuclear threshold" country, one that could move to
acquire nuclear weapons quickly. "Clearly, there's a majority in Congress in support of
additional sanctions," said Robert Einhorn, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and
a former member of the U.S.team negotiating with Iran. "But whether they have the 67
votes to override a veto is another story. The administration will go all out to gain the
necessary 34 votes to sustain a veto."
Stefan Bauschard
43
A2: Structural Violence

War turns structural violence
Folk, 78 Professor of Religious and Peace Studies at Bethany College, 78 [Jerry, Peace
Educations Peace Studies : Towards an Integrated Approach, Peace & Change, volume V,
number 1, Spring, p. 58]
Those proponents of the positive peace approach who reject out of hand the work of researchers and
educators coming to the field from the perspective of negative peace too easily forget that the
prevention of a nuclear confrontation of global dimensions is the prerequisite for

all other peace research, education, and action . Unless such a confrontation can be avoided
there will be no world left in which to build positive peace. Moreover, the blanket
condemnation of all such negative peace oriented research, education or action as a reactionary
attempt to support and reinforce the status quo is doctrinaire. Conflict theory and resolution, disarmament studies,
studies of the international system and of international organizations, and integration studies are in themselves neutral. They do not
intrinsically support either the status quo or revolutionary efforts to change or overthrow it. Rather they offer a body of knowledge which can
be used for either purpose or for some purpose in between .
It is much more logical for those who understand

peace as positive peace to integrate this knowledge into their own framework
and to utilize it in achieving their own purposes. A balanced peace studies program should therefore
offer the student exposure to the questions and concerns which occupy those who view the field essentially from the point of
view of negative peace.
Stefan Bauschard
44
Impact Extensions
New sanctions cause collapse of the talks and trigger a US
attack on Iran
New York Times, January 24, 2015, Playing Politics on Iran,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/opinion/john-boehner-benjamin-netanyahu-playing-politicson-iran.html DOA: 1-26-15
.
In his State of the Union address, Mr. Obama laid out an approach to international engagement
that includes shrinking America's military commitments overseas and negotiating limits on Iran's
nuclear activities in return for a gradual lifting of sanctions. A move by Congress to pass
legislation proposing new sanctions could blow up the talks and divide the major powers
that have been united in pressuring Iran. Given an excuse to withdraw from talks, Iran
could accelerate its nuclear program, curbed for a year under an interim agreement, and
force the United States or Israel to use military action or a cyberattack to keep Tehran from
producing nuclear weapons. In a recent Washington Post op-ed article, the foreign ministers
of Britain, France, Germany and the European Union also implored Congress to hold off
on new sanctions. Similar messages have come from scores of other experts, including
two former American national security advisers, Brent Scowcroft, a Republican, and
Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat. According to Secretary of State John Kerry, even Mossad,
the Israeli intelligence service, warned Congress that new sanctions would scuttle the
talks, saying it would ''be like throwing a grenade into the process.'' Mossad later tried to
paper over any perceived differences with Mr. Netanyahu.
Torpedoing nuclear deal with new legislation will trigger

war with Iran and a wave of proliferation
Borger, 12/31/14 --- Guardian's diplomatic editor (Julian, A nuclear deal with Iran would
mean a less volatile world, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/31/nucleardeal-iran-cuba-proliferation, JMP)
There will be no greater diplomatic prize in 2015 than a comprehensive nuclear

deal with Iran. In its global significance, it would dwarf the US detente with Cuba, and not
just because there are seven times more Iranians than Cubans. This deal will not be about
cash machines in the Caribbean, but about nuclear proliferation in the most
volatile region on Earth .
An agreement was supposed to have been reached by 24 November, but Iran and the west were
too far apart to make the final leap. After nine months of bargaining, the intricate,
multidimensional negotiation boiled down to two main obstacles: Irans long-term capacity to
enrich uranium, and the speed and scale of sanctions relief.
Iran wants international recognition of its right not just to enrich, but to do so on an industrial
scale. It wants to maintain its existing infrastructure of 10,000 centrifuges in operation and
another 9,000 on standby, and it wants to be able to scale that capacity up many times.
The US and its allies say Tehran has no need for so much enriched uranium. Its one existing
reactor is Russian-built, as are its planned reactors, so all of them come with Russian-supplied
fuel as part of the contract. The fear is that industrial enrichment capacity would allow Iran to
make a bombs-worth of weapons-grade uranium very quickly, if it decided it needed one faster
than the international community could react.
However, the west is currently not offering large-scale, immediate sanctions relief in return for
such curbs on Irans activity. President Barack Obama can only temporarily suspend US
congressional sanctions, and western states are prepared to reverse only some elements of UN
security council sanctions. The best the west can offer upfront is a lifting of the EU oil embargo.
Stefan Bauschard
45
These gaps remain substantial, but none of the parties involved can walk away from the table. A
collapse of talks would lead to a slide back to the edge of conflict between Iran
and Israel; the latter has vowed to launch military strikes rather than
allow the former to build a bomb . It could also trigger a wave of
proliferation across the region and beyond as other countries hedge their
bets.
So the parties to the talks have given themselves more time until 1 March 2015 to agree
a framework deal for bridging them and until 1 July to work out all of the details. They have
resumed meetings in Geneva, with an emphasis on sessions between the two
most important countries, the US and Iran. The trouble is that, while the diplomats
inside the chamber sense that they are still making progress in closing the gaps,
the sceptics back home just see deceit and playing for time by the other side.
This is particularly true of the US Congress. A new Republican-controlled Senate
will convene on 6 January. From that date, the White House can no longer rely on a
Democratic majority leader to keep new sanctions legislation off the Senate floor. The
legislation now under discussion could take the form of triggered sanctions, which
would come into effect if there was no deal by a target date. That would add urgency
to the negotiations, undoubtedly a good thing, but it would also provoke counter-measures
from Irans parliament, the Majlis, and a very volatile environment.
Failure will tube ISIS response and trigger U.S.-Iran war --- worst option is no deal at all
Cohen, 10/3/14 (Roger, The New York Times, Iran, the Thinkable Ally, Factiva)
LONDON -- Breakfast last week in New York with President Hassan Rouhani of Iran was a cordial
affair, bereft of the fireworks of his predecessor, whose antics made headlines and not much
more. Rouhani, flanked by his twinkly-eyed foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, was
composed, lucid and, on the whole, conciliatory. He said a nuclear accord was doable by the
deadline of Nov. 24 ''if there is good will and seriousness.'' He revealed that he had spoken last
year with President Obama about ''a number'' of possible areas of collaboration in the event of an
accord. He did not underplay the difficulties, or the implacability of a deal's opponents in Iran and
the United States, but suggested the ''short-lived dustbowl'' thrown up by any resolution would
dissipate as win-win awareness grew. He even alluded to the aroma of roses. It was a polished
performance full of the subtleties intrinsic to the Iranian mind. The question, as always with Iran,
is what precisely it meant.
The interim agreement with Iran, reached in November 2013, has had many merits. Iran has
respected its commitments, including a reduction of its stockpiles of enriched uranium and a
curbing of production. The deal has brought a thaw in relations between the United States and
Tehran; once impossible meetings between senior officials are now near routine.
The rapid spread over the past year of the Sunni jihadist movement that calls itself Islamic State
has underscored the importance of these nascent bilateral relations: ISIS is a barbarous, shared
enemy whose rollback becomes immeasurably more challenging in the absence of AmericanIranian understanding. Allies need not be friends, as the Soviet role in defeating Hitler
demonstrated. President Obama's war against ISIS makes war with Iran more unthinkable than
ever. Absent a ''comprehensive solution that would ensure Iran's nuclear program will be
exclusively peaceful,'' in the words of last year's accord, the drumbeat for such a war would
almost certainly resume . From Jerusalem to Washington countless drummers are ready.
It is critical that this doable deal get done, the naysayers be frustrated, and a rancorous
American-Iranian bust-up not be added to the ambient mayhem in the Middle East. The Islamic
Republic, 35 years after the revolution, is -- like it or not -- a serious and stable power in an
unstable region. Its highly educated population is pro-Western. Its actions and interests are often
opposed to the United States and America's allies, and its human rights record is appalling, but
then that is true of several countries with which Washington does business.
Stefan Bauschard
46
An important recent report from The Iran Project -- whose distinguished signatories include Brent
Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Thomas Pickering, Ryan Crocker, John Limbert (the former U.S.
hostage in Tehran), Joseph Nye and William Luers -- put the U.S. strategic interest in a deal well:
''There is a strong link between settling the nuclear standoff and America's ability to play
a role in a rapidly changing Middle East.'' A nuclear agreement, the report said, ''will help
unlock the door to new options.'' From Syria to Afghanistan by way of Iraq, those options are
urgently needed.
For them to be opened up, a workable narrative has to be found, one that satisfies Congress that
Iran's road to a bomb has been sealed off through curtailment and rigorous inspection of the
nuclear program, and satisfies Iran's hard-liners that the country's ability to develop nuclear
power for peaceful use has not been permanently infringed or its rights as a signatory of the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons irrevocably curtailed. That is a tall order. But
subtlety and ingenuity are no strangers at this table. Both sides have an enormous amount to
lose if talks fail.
Obama has put his personal prestige behind this effort. Collapse would amount to another
Middle Eastern failure for him. He knows that the sanctions drive against Iran would likely unravel
in the event of failure, as cooperation with Europe, Russia and China frays. He would be
pushed once again toward military action against Iran . (Of course, he would also prefer to
concentrate visible progress in the talks between Nov. 4 and Nov. 24, so that Republicans cannot
brandish ''softness'' on Iran against the Democrats in the midterm elections.)
The difficulties are considerable. Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace told me, ''Those we talk to can't deliver and those who can deliver can't talk to us.'' Ali
Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, who does not do New York breakfasts, is a hard-liner. On
issues from the number of centrifuges Iran is permitted to the duration of any deal, the two sides
differ. Sadjadpour believes ''managed irresolution'' is the best that can be hoped for, a failure that
preserves some gains. I think failure would be unmitigated: Renewed estrangement, war drift. A
deal can and must be done for the simple reason it is far better -- for Iran, the United States,
Europe and Israel -- than any of the alternatives.
US deal builds a new security architecture---de-escalates

global conflicts---Case cant turn the DA
Shireen T. Hunter 13, Visiting Professor, Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at
Georgetown University, "The US-Iran Deal Could Lead to a More Stable Middle East and SouthWest Asia," 12-3-2013, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shireen-t-hunter/the-usiran-deal-could-le_b_4379098.html, DOA: 1-22-2015, y2k
Their
both continuing on this
path could have positive outcomes not only for the U.S. and Iran
but also for the entire region of the Mid East and South-West Asia
dle
might lead to a change of paradigm in i nternational

even
and regional
eventually to the establishment of a new security structure
. Under proper conditions,
it
r elations and
in these regions. The Peace of Westphalia (1648),
which ended the Thirty Years' War in Europe, is called by many historians the "peace of exhaustion." The Westphalia treaty resulted from the fact that, despite decades of war, none of the competing forces succeeded in achieving its maximalist
goals, while leaving them all depleted and exhausted. It also led to the realization that,
to avoid a repetition of
such
ruinous wars a new
structure for inter-state relations need to be put in place

ed
. This led to the development of principles which laid the foundation of
the modern international system which, in its essential elements, still exists. There is now such a possibility in the Middle East and South-West Asia. The experience of the last three decades, and especially the last ten years, shows that no
single regional country or creed can dominate the entire region. Iran's revolutionary ideology has lost whatever broader appeal it ever had in the region and has even begun to play itself out at home. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has failed to roll
back the Shia revival in Iraq or to establish its over-lordship with other Sunni Arab countries. Turkey's dreams of a new version of the Ottoman Empire have also proved highly unrealistic. And despite efforts to use Iran as the sacrificial lamb in an
Israeli-Sunni Arab bargain, Arab-Israeli peace remains as elusive as ever. But Iran has also been thwarted in its effort to "liberate" Palestine.
At the international level the

,
U.S. has failed to establish Pax Americana in a democratized Middle East and
South-West Asia
hegemony
; and
other powers
, both old and new,
have tried to challenge global

its
. The fundamental changes within the international system are revealed by the unfolding of the Syrian crisis and the stalemate in this conflict at both regional and international levels, especially Russian and
Chinese resistance to US policies there.
This stalemate
in the region and internationally
offers the best opportunity to try
Stefan Bauschard
47
reordering the region according to a new paradigm of avoiding maximalist

goals and recognizing the principal security concerns
of all countries in the region, of course including Israel. This would
include Iran's ending its excessive hostility toward Israel and trying to help the Palestinians' aspirations through dialogue as well as recognizing the limits of its influence in the Sunni Arab World. Meanwhile, this reordering would mean that Saudi
Arabia and the Persian Gulf Arab states must accept the legitimacy of a role for Iran in the Persian Gulf and the rest of the Middle East and South-West Asia, and for both Iran and Saudi Arabia to recognize that each has natural constituencies in
these regions which both should respect. Such a Saudi-Iranian understanding would go a long way toward easing sectarian tensions and fostering broader regional understandings which would contribute to regional stability. Nor is such a SaudiIranian reconciliation a far-fetched idea. This happened in the past during the Rafsanjani and Khatami presidencies and it can happen again. Already, Ayatullah Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is widely respected and trusted by the Saudi leadership,
especially by King Abdullah, has indicated that he is willing to undertake a process of reconciliation with the Kingdom and, for this purpose, to travel to Riyadh. But even were this reconciliation to take place, it would not mean the establishment of
a Saudi-Iranian condominium in the Middle East; such a scheme would be bound to fail. But it would eliminate a major cause of tension in the Middle East and South-West Asia and make it much easier to resolve conflicts from Lebanon to
if such developments take place, they could prepare the ground

for development of a region-wide security system. In all of this, the role of the U.S.
would be vital and pivotal None of the other powers has the resources and the
acceptance and
willingness
By making the deal with Iran the
U.S. has taken what could be the first step in this direction.
America should convince them that a more reconciliatory and less
Afghanistan and enhance stability. Eventually,
, more important, the
to play such a role.
Therefore, instead of being deterred by the doubts and resistance of
its recalcitrant allies,
maximalist approach,
peace
as reflected in the Iranian nuclear deal,
is in the interest of
all regional countries and that of
global
Diplomatic deals cement US leadership---solves extinction

G. John Ikenberry 14 is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at
Princeton University. During 201314, he is the 72nd George Eastman Visiting Professor at
Balliol College, Oxford Universisty. Obamas Pragmatic Internationalism, 4-8-14, http://www.theamerican-interest.com/2014/04/08/obamas-pragmatic-internationalism/ DOA: 1-22-15, y2k
America under Obama is not in retreat. Critics who make that claim confuse internationalism with interventionism.
internationalist in his embrace of
Obama
is more skeptical about the use of military force than the last President, but he
the wider spectrum of partnerships, institutions, and
is
manifestly more
diplomatic
engagements that make up the American-led order
. Indeed,
military
interventionism can erode internationalism the misadventure

damage
leadership and reputation for power undermined the willingness of
other countries to work with us
, as
d American
its
Iraq
showsa war that
on shared interests, generated nearly a trillion dollars of debt, and left the American people less eager to act abroad. In fact, in rhetoric and action, the
Obama Administration embraces the core internationalist convictions driving American foreign policy over the past half-century: The United States has and should advance its interestseconomic, political, securityby building and leading an
open and liberal-oriented international order. This international order is uniquedifferent from past imperial and balance-of-power ordersin that it is organized around support for the rule of law, open and reciprocal trade, and a commitment to
democratic government and human rights. The United States has unique responsibilities for leading and upholding this order: generating public goods, providing security, opening markets, fostering political transitions. Alliances, partnerships,
and institutional commitments do not hinder American power but make it more effective, legitimate, and durable.
defense, trade,
Deep engagement
in all regions of the world
through
forward
diplomacy are necessary to sustain this order and protect
American interests .
Obamas restraint, including his decision not to intervene militarily in Syria, should not be mistaken for weakness. Americas image in the world has improved under Obama,
and U.S. leadership is more welcome. What critics see as retreat is actually the United States coming off its post-9/11 war footing and, just as importantly, Obama learning the strategic lessons of the past decade. Permanent wartime mobilization
and eagerness to engage in unwinnable military interventions are not the metrics for measuring American strength or leadership. They have more often made it harder to sustain the postwar liberal order that has been at the center of our foreign
policy successes for the past several decades, and that will continue to be going forward. Does the Obama Administration have a grand strategy? If we are looking for something resembling Kennans doctrine of containment or Kissingers
strategy of dtente, it will not be found. Neither can one find the soaring rhetoric of the last Administration with its war on terror and grandiose goal of ending tyranny in our world. Indeed, perhaps surprisingly, Obama has not built a foreign
policy around a grand strategic doctrine. As he told David Remnick of the New Yorker, I dont really even need a George Kennan right now. This is true, even though the Kennan of American Diplomacy would have very good things to say about
Obama. To be sure, the circumstances Obama faced in coming to office reinforced this strategic humility: a global economic meltdown, soaring budget deficits, and two costly and unpopular wars. Obama has also faced a Republican opposition
that is determined not to give Obama any wins and, for the first time since the 1950s, it contains leading political figuressuch as Ted Cruz and Rand Paulwho question the basic terms of the postwar, American-led international order. It is a
Republican opposition that has been willing to risk default on the American debtand a global financial crisisto pressure the President on partisan issues. Obama also faces a war-weary American publicwearied, it is worth pointing out, by
the poor decisions of a more interventionist Administration. This public is rightly skeptical, as he is, about the ability of military force to shape political outcomes in the Middle East. The best description of Obamas strategic orientation is pragmatic
internationalism. It is an internationalism that is more world-weary than aspirational, more transactional than transformational. It is as much realist as it is liberal internationalist. You see this pragmatic vision in Obamas Nobel Peace Prize
speech, perhaps his most personal statement on American power and the sources of international order. Obama argued that the United States has both a moral and strategic interest in binding itself to the global system of rules and institutions.
After all, he noted, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. But he also argued that American hegemonyand Americas willingness to underwrite global security for more than six
decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our armshas been an essential source of stable order. In his Oslo speech, Obama quoted from President Kennedys famous lines in his 1963 American University address, which
called for an attainable peace that does not depend on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions. This is a sober intellectual vision that resists the foreign policy of big gestures and grand designs in
favor of small steps and the search for achievable gains. Obama is playing the long game, seeking to shift global partnerships and alignments in Americas direction.Obama is playing the long game, seeking to shift global partnerships and
alignments in Americas direction. This full spectrum internationalism can be contrasted with other types of internationalism, as Henry R. Naus recent book on conservative internationalism makes clear. But it also stands in contrast to the
growing body of grand strategic thinking that comes under the labels of retrenchment, restraint, and off-shore balancing. These truly are visions that call for a strategic retreat from alliances and deep engagement, but they are politically and
intellectually a world apart from Obama and the people who run his foreign policy. Obama and his colleagues are comfortably in the middle of the American postwar, internationalist mainstream. While Obamas internationalism embodies classic
American themes, two assumptions about the current global shift also inform his policy, further reinforcing his internationalism. One assumption is that power is diffusing. The unipolar distribution of power is slowly giving way to a world where
more states will have capacities and demand a voice. This is not a declinist assumption but a belief that the United States needs to invest in global arrangements that will protect its interests in a more crowded world. Obamas first national
security strategy report emphasized the goal of bringing rising developing states into the international order. This was also a theme of Secretary Clintons several major speeches, where she argued that the United States does not seek a
multipolar world but rather a multi-partnership world. The Administrations elevation of the G-20 Summit as a venue for leadership dialogue reflects this emphasis. You see it in outreach to India, Brazil, Turkey, and other emerging states. The
idea is that the United States needs to find ways to lead through new sorts of coalitions. Some might call this leading from behind, but it is closer to an idea that Obama framed in his 2013 UN General Assembly speech: America will lead if
others are behind us. The second assumption is that security interdependence between the United States and other countries is increasing, so new and intensified forms of security cooperation will be needed. Technology and interdependence
are making national solutions to security problems increasingly untenable. This has been true in terms of nuclear weapons for half a century. But it is also true because of the longer-term and more recent rise of transnational threatsWMD
proliferation, global warming, pandemics, and so forth. Looking into the next decades, the United States cannot be safe alone; it can only be safe through security cooperation with others. This sort of pragmatic internationalism can be seen in
four key Obama foreign policy initiatives. One is the Nuclear Security Summit, an international gathering that epitomizes the Obama approach. In the initial meeting in 2010, Obama hosted the leaders of 47 countries in Washington with the aim
of encouraging efforts to secure nuclear materials and prevent nuclear terrorism. The idea is not to promulgate a new multilateral treaty but rather to foster national efforts to strengthen the monitoring and safeguarding of nuclear facilities. Nonnuclear states have been drawn into the process, and China is increasingly an active member of this gathering. The idea is to foster informal cooperation on a preeminent security problem. A second policy initiative is the rebalance to Asia. In
retrospect, it would probably have been best not to wave around terms such as pivot and rebalance. It raises questions in countries outside of Asia about the future of American security commitments (after all, the pivot is away from them),
and it focuses scrutiny on American activities inside of Asia. But the underlying idea is clear: The United States is determined to play a counterweight role to the rise of Chinese power. Under Obama, the United States signed the ASEAN Treaty of
Amity and Cooperation, and Obama and the Secretary of State have actually showed up at the ASEAN Regional Forum, putting the United States in a position to lead on the South China Sea dispute. The Administration has also showed
leadership on Burmaa bigger achievement for human freedom and democracy than anything that happened as a result of the grand gestures of the Bush Administration. Obama is not pursuing a strategy of containment of China but steady
reinforcement of Americas far-flung system of security partnerships in the region. In the meantime, the Obama Administration has articulated an agenda for cooperation with Beijing in areas such as energy, the environment, and nuclear nonproliferation. Rather than withdraw from Asia, the United States is allowing itself to be drawn into ever more elaborate and far-reaching relationships. Third, the two large trade initiativesthe Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnershipare another major effort to extend American economic leadership. Both agreements are still under negotiation and face difficult paths. But they reflect Obamas strategic vision. In the TPP, the Obama Administration
is seeking to undercut more narrow regional trade pacts that favor China with Transpacific rules and arrangements that reinforce global standards and flows. The trade pact with the European Union has geopolitical implications, building
integrated markets between Western countries that generate growth and reinforce old political bonds. Fourth,
fail, but it
the nuclear diplomacy with Iran
may succeed or
is emblematic of Obamas pragmatic internationalist search for deals.

Obama has articulated
Administration assembled the strongest sanctions regime ever attempted, working with its traditional European partners together with Chinese and Russian support.
The
himself
Stefan Bauschard
48
the interests that the United States has in a settlement that prevents Iran from
getting a bomb but that offers a pathway for Iran back into the world
community
also
. Despite its dangers,
this is a diplomatic effort with a
potential
payoff
that dwarfs anything the Bush
Administration triedbut failedto do in Iraq or the wider region. Obama himself has calmly withstood the indignities inflicted on him by an Israeli Prime Minister who has used his connections with politicians in Congress to orchestrate a
campaign to badmouth and undermine what the President considers a seminal American national security objective.
Turns allies prolif

Matthew Kroenig 14, Associate Professor and International Relations Field Chair Department
of Government Georgetown University & Nonresident Senior Fellow Brent Scowcroft Center on
International Security The Atlantic Council, The History of Proliferation Optimism: Does It Have A
Future? February 2014, http://www.matthewkroenig.com/The%20History%20of%20Proliferation
%20Optimism_Feb2014.pdf, DOA: 1-22-15, y2k
Undermines Alliances. The
spread of nuclear weapons also complicates
U.S. alliance
relationships. Washington uses the promise of military protection as a way to cement its alliance structures. U.S.
allies depend on Americas protection, giving Washington influence over allied states foreign policies. Historically,
the U nited S tates has offered, and threatened to retract, the security guarantee carrot to
prevent allied states from acting contrary to its interests. As nuclear weapons
spread , however, alliances held together by promises of military protection are undermined
in two
may doubt the credibility of Washingtons commitments to

provide a military defense against nuclear-armed states, leading them to weaken ties with their patron.
Recall Charles de Gaulles doubts about Washingtons willingness to trade New York for Paris. Similarly, if Iran
ways. First, U.S. allies
acquires nuclear weapons , U.S. partners in the Middle East, such as Israel and Gulf
question Washingtons resolve to defend them from Iran. While some
states might very well seek American protection from a nuclear-armed Iran, drawing them closer to
Washington, others might go the other way . After all, if the U nited S tates proves
states, will
unwilling to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, would our
allies in the region really believe that Washington would be willing
to fight a war against a nuclear-armed Iran ? Qatar, for example, already appears
to be hedging
its
bets , loosening ties to Washington and warming to Tehran. Second, nuclear proliferation
could encourage client states to acquire nuclear weapons themselves, giving them greater security independence and
making them less dependable allies. According to many scholars, the acquisition of the force de frappe was instrumental
in permitting the French Fifth Republic under President Charles de Gualle to pursue a foreign policy path independent
from Washington and NATO.64 Similarly, it is possible that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other regional
states will acquire independent nuclear capabilities
to counter Irans nuclear arsenal,
destabilizing an already unstable region and threatening Washingtons

ability to influence regional dynamics.
greatly
Sanctions relief solves econ

Leslie et al 14, Researcher @ National Iranian Council, Jonathan Leslie, Reza Marashi and
Trita Parsi, Losing Billions: The Cost of Iran Sanctions to the U.S. Economy, July 2014,
http://www.niacouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Losing-Billions-The-Cost-of-IranSanctions.pdf, DOA: 1-25-14,
In the case of Iran,

where unprecedented U.S. and international sanctions may soon be lifted as part of a deal
over Irans disputed nuclear program, understanding the cost of the policy is particularly important
There are very few studies measuring the cost of sanctions to the sanctioning countries.
Stefan Bauschard
49
since any debate over whether to exchange sanctions relief for limitations to Irans nuclear program would be incomplete
at best and misleading at worst if it did not address the cost of sanctions. This report aims to provide just that. The
United States is by far the biggest loser of all sanctions enforcing

nations . From 1995 to 2012, the U.S. sacrificed between $134.7 and $175.3 billion in
potential export revenue
to Iran. These estimates reflect
the loss solely from
export industries , and do not include the detrimental economic effects of other
externalities of Iran-targeted sanctions, such as higher global oil prices . Moreover, since sanctions
have depressed the Iranian GDP, Irans imports would have been even higher in the absence of sanctions, which further
would increase the economic costs to sanctions enforcing nations due to lost exports. Consequently,
the full
cost to the U.S. economy is likely even higher . There is also a human
element, measured in terms of jobs
needed to support higher export levels. On average, the lost export
revenues translate into between 51,043 and 66,436 lost job opportunities each year. In 2008,
the number
reaches as high as 214,657-279,389 lost job opportunities
Stefan Bauschard
50
Prolif Impact
Interim deal solves prolif- sanctions wreck it
Rawan Alkhatib 12/8, WAND staff, Womens Action for New Directions, "New Sanctions on
Iran Would Undermine Diplomacy," 12-8-14, www.wand.org/2014/12/08/new-sanctions-on-iranwould-undermine-diplomacy/, DOA: 1-23-15, y2k
New Sanctions on Iran Would Undermine Diplomacy On November 24, the deadline for the nuclear
negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany -- was
extended for another seven months. Reacting to the extension, a number of members of Congress are
demanding harsher sanctions on Iran to, in their view, increase pressure on the Iranians to make greater
concessions. Imposing
new sanctions on Iran would violate the terms of the Joint Plan of Action --
the interim agreement
from November 2013 -- and
undermine the U nited S tates role at the
negotiating table. The Iranians must believe the U nited S tates is negotiating in good faith.
Otherwise, U.S. credibility will diminish and reaching a nuclear deal with Iran that lessens
the threat of nuclear prolif eration will be near impossible. Republican Senators John McCain (AZ), Lindsey
Graham (SC), and Kelly Ayotte (NH) are among those voicing the most significant opposition to the continuation of the
nuclear negotiations without additional demands on the Iranians. They argue that the failure to impose more sanctions will
diminish Irans incentive to maintain a nuclear program solely for energy rather than weapons and, in turn, set off an
unbridled nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It is hard to take their intentions at face value. Indeed, in an interview with
ABC News Radio, Senator-elect Tom Cotton (R-AR) revealed what he believes would result from this course of action:
Cotton said the way to accomplish [an end to the negotiations] would be to reimpose the economic sanctions that were
relaxed as part of an interim deal with Iran so that negotiations could continue. (As part of the JPOA, the P5+1 provided
modest sanctions relief to Iran in exchange for Iran freezing and rolling back aspects of its nuclear program.) One thing
seems clear: McCain, Graham, and Ayotte are not considering the political impact that renewed
sanctions could have on Irans citizens and how this might subsequently play into the negotiations. We
cannot risk losing the support of ordinary Iranians who will benefit from economic improvements once a
deal is done and who would be most adversely impacted by new sanctions . Conversely, renewing
sanctions on Iran will empower

loudly calling
Iranian
hard-liners
that find ways around the economic pain while
for more aggression against the United States and for unchecked nuclear
proliferation . While it was disappointing that the sides could not come to an agreement on the self-imposed
extension to the nuclear negotiations nonetheless represents progress . The
obligations established by the JPOA are still in effect and as experts note, nothing in the
extension weakens the hands of the P5+1 to secure a final agreement . That is, Iran continues to
have curbs on its ability to produce materials for nuclear weapons and its facilities continue to be
scrutinized by international inspectors. In fact, the extension requires heightened scrutiny. Iran
must expand IAEA access to centrifuge production facilities to double the current frequency and
allow for no-notice or "snap" inspections. If Congress were to impose renewed sanctions on Iran,
the progress made up to this point would likely unravel . As Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA)
argued, "A collapse of the talks is counter to U.S. interests and would further destabilize an already volatile
region." In this way, Congress needs to present a united front to crystallize the United States negotiating position.
Splintering causes the Iranians to doubt American intentions. In a highly volatile region, diplomacy with Iran is
the only good option. Moreover, engaging in meaningful dialogue with Iran is only possible when we
demonstrate our own commitment to the process by making good on our commitments under the JPOA and
holding off on actions that would undermine our position.
November 24 deadline, the
Iranian prolif causes regional nuclear conflict

Edelman et al 11 The Dangers of a Nuclear Iran, The Limits of Containment, Eric S.
Edelman, Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr, and Evan Braden Montgomery JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011,
ERIC S. EDELMAN is a Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Stefan Bauschard
51
Assessments; he was U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in 2005-9. ANDREW F.

KREPINEVICH is President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. EVAN
BRADEN MONTGOMERY is a Research Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67162/eric-s-edelman-andrew-f-krepinevichjr-and-evan-braden-montgomer/the-dangers-of-a-nuclear-iran
view is far too sanguine. Above all, it rests on the questionable assumptions that
possessing nuclear weapons induces caution and restraint, that other nations in
the Middle East would balance against Iran rather than bandwagon with it, that a
nuclear-armed Iran would respect new redlines even though a conventionally
armed Iran has failed to comply with similar warnings, and that further
proliferation in the region could be avoided. It seems more likely that Iran would become
increasingly aggressive once it acquired a nuclear capability, that the United
Yet this
States' allies in the Middle East would feel greatly threatened and so would
increasingly accommodate Tehran, that the United States' ability to promote and
defend its interests in the region would be diminished , and that further nuclear
proliferation, with all the dangers that entails, would occur. The greatest concern in the near
term would be that an unstable Iranian-Israeli nuclear contest could
emerge, with a significant risk that either side would launch a first strike on the
other despite the enormous risks and costs involved. Over the longer term, Saudi Arabia
and other states in the Middle East might pursue their own nuclear capabilities,
raising the possibility of a highly unstable regional nuclear arms race.
Stefan Bauschard
52
Sanctions Kill the Current Deal

Sanctions will kill the current deal and accelerate
proliferation
Associated Press, January 23, 2015, Iran: US sanctions vote will kill 'probability' of nuke deal,
Bharat Press, http://bharatpress.com/2015/01/23/iran-us-sanctions-vote-will-kill-chance-of-nukedeal/ DOA: 1-26-15
Iran's foreign minister Javad Zarif said Friday that a vote in U.S. Congress for more
sanctions against his country will kill a likely nuclear deal with the West. Speaking in an
Associated Press debate at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Zarif warned that Iran's
parliament will retaliate if U.S. lawmakers approve fresh sanctions. "A sanctions bill by the
U.S. Congress will kill the joint plan of action that we adopted last year in Geneva," he said.
"Now the president of the United States has the power to veto it, but our parliament will have its
counteraction." The Iranian parliament will "retaliate," he added, by passing a bill to
increase enrichment of uranium. The United States and Iran hope that nuclear talks which
include the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany can be
accelerated in order to meet a March target for a framework agreement, and a final agreement by
June 30. The U.S. and its partners are hoping to turn an interim Geneva accord into a
permanent deal with Iran that would set long-term limits on Iran's enrichment of uranium and
other activity that could produce material for use in nuclear weapons. Iran says its program is
solely for energy production and medical research purposes, and it has agreed to some
restrictions in exchange for billions of dollars in relief from U.S. economic sanctions.
Zarif said he believes such a comprehensive deal over his country's disputed nuclear
program is almost at hand.
Current deal has stopped prolif, collapse of the deal

triggers it
The Boston Globe, January 23, 2015 , Congress shouldn't scuttle Iran talks with new sanctions,
DOA: 1-25-15http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/01/22/congress-shouldnscuttle-iran-nuclear-talks-with-new-sanctions/Z3VguzvDil3yHtBNf34U4O/story.html
Progress in getting Iran to halt its nuclear program has been slow but steady since the
signing of an interim agreement in November 2013. Under the terms of that agreement, the
Joint Plan of Action, Iran has frozen its nuclear program and converted its stockpile of
enriched uranium to a non-weapons-grade form of the mineral, all under the watch of
international inspectors. In return, the United States and its allies have offered limited sanctions
relief and access to frozen assets. What remains is for an agreement that would guarantee an
Iranian nuclear program limited to energy production, and a plan for transparency, allowing
continued monitoring by international inspectors. There's no downside to letting these
negotiations continue unhindered by new sanctions. In fact, one condition of the
agreement is that no further sanctions be imposed. Meanwhile, the agreement does allow for
new sanctions if Iran is found to be in breach. Add to this the distressed state of the Iranian
economy and falling price of oil, and the United States is clearly bargaining from a position of
strength. The US should not breach the 2013 agreement by imposing sanctions. A nuclearfree Iran is key to a more stable Middle East. Ironically, this sworn enemy of the United States
now stands, as Stephen Kinzer pointed out in a recent Globe op-ed piece, as "an island of
stability in a volcanically unstable region." Iran's president, Hassan Rouhani, has spoken openly
about Iran scaling back its nuclear goals. "Our cause is not linked to a centrifuge," he said.
Stefan Bauschard
53
Though Rouhani is answerable to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it's doubtful
negotiations would have gotten this far without some tacit approval from on high.
Obama, of course, can veto a sanctions bill, as he promised to do in his State of the Union
address. But, with only two years left in the Obama presidency, a sanctions vote could send the
wrong signals to Tehran, and put an agreement in jeopardy. If Iran backs out of talks now, the
United States would be in a worse place than before negotiations began: Iran could
resume its nuclear program, and the United States would be alienated from its allies. As
Antony Blinken, deputy secretary of state, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on
Wednesday, the United States has nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by imposing further
sanctions. Or as, as Obama put it succinctly in the State of the Union, "It doesn't make sense."
Stefan Bauschard
54
A2: No Vote
The ONLY vote coming will be over the sanctions bill---not
the other bill
Igor Volsky 1/20, "Obama Threatens To Veto Congressional Efforts To Derail Negotiations
With Iran," 1-20-2015, No Publication, http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/21/3613634/obamacongress-must-not-derail-iran-negotiations/, DOA: 1-21-2015, y2k
Still,
the measure is likely to see a vote in Congress in the coming
days . The Banking Committee is expected to vote on sanctions next week and
the bill could move to the Senate floor
in February. Twelve Senate Democrats have
previously cosponsored efforts to impose additional sanctions on Iran, meaning the chamber could be close to the twothirds majority needed to override a presidential veto.
The bill is coming but the banking committee will take up

the Mendenez bill.
AP 1/21, "Senate opens showdown with Obama over Iran sanctions," 1-21-2015, No
Publication,
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/01/senate_opens_showdown_with_
obama_over_iran_sanctions, DOA: 1-21-2015, y2k
Senators are pushing to have a say about the ongoing international negotiations aimed at
preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, a move they say will further destabilize an increasingly
volatile Mideast. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is working on legislation that would allow Congress to weigh in by allowing it to
take an up-down vote on any deal the Obama administration reaches with Tehran. A committee hearing on Wednesday will focus on the
status of the negotiations and the role of Congress. "Whether it's the intelligence agencies in Israel or the people we deal with around the
world, I have had no one yet say that Congress voting up or down on this deal would do anything but strengthen the administration's hand
The Senate
banking panel next week is taking up a different bill drafted by Sens. Mark Kirk , R-Ill.,
and help cause this process to come to fruition," Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said Tuesday.
and
Bob
Menendez , D-N.J., that would ramp up sanctions against Iran if a deal is not reached by July
6. The bill does not impose any new sanctions during the remaining timeline for negotiations, but if there's no deal, the sanctions that were
eased during the talks would be reinstated and then Iran would face new punitive measures in the months thereafter.
Stefan Bauschard
55
A2: 2016
It deescalates US-Iranian tension and prevents war
Tyler Cullis 14, Legal Fellow & Policy Associate, National Iranian American Council, "Iran
Nuclear Deal Could Spell End of the War That Never Was," 11-19-2014, Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tyler-cullis/iran-nuclear-deal-could-s_b_6185602.html, DOA: 1-222015, y2k
In less than a week,
the outcome of the nuclear talks with Iran will be clear .
According to one P5+1 diplomat, the possibilities -- ranging from most to least likely -- are an extension of the talks, a
comprehensive agreement, or an agreement in principle. Not on the menu -- at least among the principals at the
negotiations -- is
a return to the escalatory cycle that defined the past decade and
threatened constantly to spill over into war . As the U.S.'s lead negotiator, Wendy Sherman,
remarked at a conference in Washington last month,
if the talks fail, " escalation is the name of
the game, on all sides , and none of that is good." In other words, failure is not an option. This -- not
surprisingly -- comes as a disappointment to some in Washington. Little more than a decade after having advocated war
on Iraq, many of the same personalities
have sought to bring the U.S. and Iran to the
precipice of military conflict . Their efforts were only narrowly averted

summer when
secret negotiations in Oman yielded November's interim agreement
last
on the
nuclear issue. Since then, President Obama's detractors have taken aim at the talks itself, pouncing on any and all U.S.
compromises as paving the way towards nuclear holocaust. But their messaging, besides being histrionic, has been
confused. In the same week where Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that "the alternative to a bad deal
is not war," but more sanctions, leading U.S. hawks, Reuel Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz, wrote that the "wise[] bet is
that sanctions will fail..." -- at least "without other forms of coercion." What "other forms of coercion" did they have in
mind? War, of course. This cross-signaling bespeaks a broader problem for
Washington's warmongers : the nuclear talks have de-escalated

tensions between the U.S. and Iran not just on the nuclear issue, but on
others as well . This has made their lives difficult because, instead of merely invoking Iran to garner support for
their hard-line position, they are now forced to argue the point and to justify why turning our back on dialogue is the right
approach. Because let's face it: Having been involved in constant negotiations with each other for the past year, the
U.S. and Iran understand each other better now than at any point over the past 35
years. Moreover, with the Middle East in a turmoil never before seen, both countries have been forced to revisit a
calculus that had made each other implacable enemies, incapable of cooperation. If the Middle East and the U.S.'s role in
it is to be salvaged, it will have to be on the back of a broader U.S.-Iran dtente. It is a difficult point to argue. With most
U.S. troops leaving Afghanistan by the end of the year and the White House prepared to put more boots-on-the-ground in
Iraq -- all the while U.S. fighter jets pound Islamic State outposts in Syria -- the idea that the United States can open up a
new front with Iran is unsound. Americans have neither the appetite for a new war nor the ability to wage one, and the
empty braggadocio of U.S. hawks won't change that fact.
That leaves U.S. hawks in the
unenviable position of having to swim against the tide in U.S.-Iran

relations . At a time when so many are hopeful for a peaceful resolution to this conflict - both in the United States,
in Iran, and around the world - those pushing for war look and sound perverse in their efforts to thwart compromise and kill
the negotiations. Being the last, best chance the United States has at limiting Iran's nuclear program, this pulls the thin
veneer that long masked their intentions off for good. Pushing conflict with Iran has never been about the nuclear
program, as much as it has about that old desire to reconfigure the Middle East via regime change. How else can we
explain U.S. hard-liners' adamant opposition to an interim deal that, by all accounts, has stalled Iran's nuclear program for
the first time in a decade and allowed international inspectors daily access to check on Iran's nuclear facilities? How else
to explain the shrillness that greets mere letter-writing to Iran's leader at a time when the nuclear deadline nears and the
Middle East goes up in flames?
U.S. hawks are pulling no punches , because they
have no more punches to pull. They recognize well enough that if a nuclear deal is
Stefan Bauschard
cemented in the weeks ahead, their push for war is
56
close to being
all for naught.
That
doesn't mean they won't try to spoil an agreement. Two weeks ago, Republicans swept to majorities in both houses of
Congress during the mid-terms, giving U.S. hard-liners a pedestal on which to preempt a nuclear deal. Already, some
members of Congress have designs on scurrying any agreement reached between the U.S. and Iran -- either by
preventing the president from implementing a deal or by imposing new sanctions on Iran. However, if the White
House has the wherewithal to withstand Republican-led attacks
on a nuclear deal,
U.S. hawks will be without any further means to advance us

towards war against Iran . A nuclear agreement will take hold; both sides will adhere to their reciprocal
obligations; and
the world will be free of both renewed conflict and a new
nuclear-weapons power . President Obama's legacy will then be defined not merely as bringing to a
close two wars inherited from his predecessor, but as spelling the end of the war that never was. That will be -- in the
great scheme of things -- his singular triumph in office. It will also be the last throw of cold-water on war plans a decadein-the-making.
Stefan Bauschard
57
A2: No Deal
Talks now, movement toward a deal
McClatchy, 1-23-15, Kerry meets with Iran's foreign minister on nuclear talks
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/01/23/254208/kerry-meets-with-irans-foreign.html DOA: 1-2515
DAVOS, Switzerland - Secretary of State John Kerry met with Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif late Friday on the sidelines of the annual World Economic Forum to
try to advance efforts to secure a final nuclear deal ahead of a new July 1 deadline. It was
the third meeting in just over a week between the two diplomats seeking a deal intended to
remov Iran's capability to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for lifting crippling international
sanctions. Kerry and Zarif met Jan. 14 in Geneva for nearly seven hours and again in Paris two
days later. The Kerry-Zarif meetings come as representatives of Iran and the so-called P5
plus 1 countries (the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, France and Germany) are
meeting to try to narrow differences. While Kerry and Zarif were in Davos, Wendy Sherman,
the U.S. undersecretary of state, and her nine-member team were meeting in Zurich with an
Iranian delegation led by Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi. Senior European Union officials
were expected to join the Zurich talks, which are scheduled to end Saturday. Kerry declined to
comment on his meeting with Zarif. Asked if any progress had been made in his one-hour
meeting with Kerry, Zarif was noncommittal. "Well, we're trying," he said. Meanwhile, the Iranian
Fars news agency reported that Zarif also held a phone conversation with the European
Union's foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, on the nuclear negotiations. The official
IRNA news agency reported that Kerry and Zarif also discussed regional developments, including
Syria. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told McClatchy that "we hope the difficult parts will
be sorted out," but he added, "There's still a lot of work to do." A new round of talks between
the P5 plus 1 and Iran are slated to be held in February in Geneva. Under a Nov. 23, 2013,
deal reached in Geneva between the P5 plus 1 and Iran, Tehran agreed to halt some of its
enrichment activities and freeze work in some controversial facilities in exchange for the
easing of sanctions. But the negotiators have since missed two deadlines to reach a permanent
deal.
A deal becoming more likely --- Iran is compromising in

good faith now and isnt cheating
Sahimi, 12/24/14 --- Professor of Chemical Engineering & Materials Science and the NIOC
Chair at the University of Southern California, has been analyzing Iran's political developments
and its nuclear program for nearly two decades (Muhammad, US Iran Hawks Try to Sabotage
Nuclear Deal, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/us-iran-hawks-try-sabotage-nuclear-deal-11920,
JMP)
As the prospects of a comprehensive nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1
the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany brightens,
Washingtons hawks seem to have gone into panic mode. They do not seem to want
any agreement unless Iran says uncle, gives up its sovereignty and national rights within the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and completely dismantles its nuclear infrastructure.
Theyre asking Iran to capitulate, not to negotiate. Thats an unrealistic goaland in
their dogged pursuit of it, they have overlooked serious steps Tehrans taken that
demonstrate a desire for compromise.
We see this unfortunate dynamic in an article this month by Mark Dubowitz, Executive Director of
the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, published in the National Interest. Dubowitzs
main premise is that it was the economic sanctions imposed by the United States and
Stefan Bauschard
58
its allies that brought Iran to the negotiation table, and only more economic sanctions will
induce it to surrender. The premise is false. While the sanctions did play a role, they were
not the most important reason, or even one of the primary ones. Iran is
negotiating because that is what it has wantedcontrary to Dubowitzs assertion that
Iran does not appear to be ready to compromise.
President Hassan Rouhani, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, and their diplomatic
team have always been interested in a compromise. Between February 2003 and
August 2005, Rouhani was Irans chief nuclear negotiator under former president Mohammad
Khatami. Zarif was the senior diplomat taking part in the negotiations between Iran and three
European Union powers, Britain, France and Germany (the EU3). At that time, Iran proposed to
limit the number of its centrifuges to three thousand, put Irans nuclear program under strict
inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and impose other limitations. In
return, Iran asked only for security guarantees by the United States and the EU3. The proposal
was rejected by the George W. Bush administration and the EU3.
Earlier, in May 2003, the Khatami administration had proposed a comprehensive plan for
addressing all the major issues between Iran and the U.S., including strict limits on Irans nuclear
program. But, that proposal too was rejected by the Bush-Cheney team that was still drunk on
mission accomplished nonsense, and less than a year prior had been crowing that real men go
to Tehran. The opportunity slipped away.
Since Rouhani and his team have long been interested in a compromise, its no surprise that
theyre seeking one again. But the facts on the ground have changed since 2003. So have Irans
conditions for a compromise. Whereas Iran did not have a single centrifuge operating in 20032005, it now has nearly ten thousand centrifuges spinning and producing low-enriched uranium,
with another ten thousand centrifuges waiting to be started. The Rouhani administration will not
go back to its 2003 proposal. In fact, even if President Rouhani did want the same deal, Tehrans
hardliners would immediately impeach him. But Iran has stated repeatedly that it could
live with an agreement whereby Irans current operating centrifuges will continue
to work, but no new centrifuges will be installed for the duration of the agreement.
Irans desire for a deal is genuine.
Dubowitz also suggests that the U.S. has made all sorts of concessions to Iran, that even the
goalposts [of a final deal] appear to be moving, while Iran has held fast. This is completely false.
In fact, Iran has made five major concessions.
One is agreeing to limit the number of its centrifuges for the duration of the
comprehensive agreement. By doing so, Iran has temporarily given up its rights under the
NPTthat treaty imposes no limit on the number of centrifuges that a member state can have, so
long as they are under IAEA inspections and for peaceful purposes.
The second concession is about Irans uranium enrichment facility built under a
mountain in Fordow, near the holy city of Qom. It was a thorny issue for a long time. The
United States had demanded that Iran dismantle the facility altogether. The facility is, however,
suited neither for military purposes nor large-scale industrial use. It was built by Iran to preserve
its indigenous enrichment technology in case the larger Natanz enrichment facility was destroyed
by bombinga threat that multiple states have made. Abbas Araghchi, Irans deputy foreign
minister and a principal nuclear negotiator, has emphasized repeatedly and emphatically, Iran
would not agree to close any of its nuclear facilities. Iran has agreed to convert the site to a
nuclear research facility, representing a major concession.
Irans third concession is about the IR-40 heavy water nuclear reactor, under
construction in Arak. When completed, it will replace the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR), a
forty-seven-year-old reactor that produces medical isotopes for close to one million Iranian
patients every year. The U.S. had demanded that Iran convert the IR-40 to a light-water reactor,
due to the concerns that the reactor, when it comes online, will produce plutonium that can be
used to make nuclear weapons. But Iran refused to go along. Why? Because, first and foremost,
all the work on the reactor has been done by Iranian experts and thus the reactor is a source of
national pride. Second, Iran has already spent billions of dollars to design and begin constructing
the reactor, and the West is not willing to share the cost of the reactor conversion to a light-water
Stefan Bauschard
59
one. On its own initiative, Iran has agreed to modify the design of the reactor so that it will
produce much smaller amounts of plutonium. Iran has also agreed not to build any reprocessing
facility for separating the plutonium from the rest of the nuclear waste.
The fourth concession is agreeing to stop enriching uranium to 19.75 percent

(commonly referred to as 20 percent in the Western media, although the seemingly minor
difference is actually quite important). In 2009, the IAEA, under pressure from the West, refused
to supply Iran with fuel for the TRR, in violation of its obligations. Thus, Iran was forced to begin
producing the 19.75 percent uranium that the TRR uses as its fuel. Tehran agreed to stop
producing the fuel, however, and has done so.
Irans fifth major concession is related to the issue of inspections of Irans nuclear
facilities by the IAEA. Iran has almost completely lived up to its obligations under its original
safeguards agreement with the Agency, signed in 1974. But IAEA Director-General Yukiya
Amano, whose politicized leadership has contributed to the complexities of reaching an
agreement, has insisted that Iran allow many more inspections. The demanded visits include
nonnuclear sites, which would be tantamount to implementing the provisions of the Additional
Protocol (AP) of the safeguards agreement. Iran signed the AP in 2003 and, without its parliament
ratifying it, implemented it voluntarily until February 2006. Then, Iran set aside the AP after the
EU3 reneged on promises made to Iran in the Sadabad Declaration of October 2003 and the
Paris Agreement of November 2004. But, Iran and the IAEA reached an agreement in November
2013 and another one last May, according to which Iran allows much more frequent and intrusive
inspection of its nuclear facilities. Such visits are way beyond Irans legal obligations under its
safeguards agreement. Since then, the IAEA has repeatedly confirmed that Iran has lived up to
most of its obligations under the additional agreement.
Most importantly, Iran recently invited the IAEA to visit the Marivan site in the province of
Kordestan in western Iran. In its November 2011 report, the IAEA had alleged that Iran might
have carried out experiments with nonnuclear high explosives in Marivan that are used for
triggering nuclear reactions. But, the IAEA turned down the invitation, presumably because it is
unsure of its own information.
What has the United States given in return for these major concessions by Iran? Very little. It has
released a small amount of Irans own money, frozen in foreign banks as the result of the illegal
sanctions. The U.S. has also lifted its (also illegal!) ban on the export of petrochemical products
and a few other minor items. As President Obama stated, 95 percent of all the sanctions are still
in place.
In his article Dubowitz also claims that Ayatollah Khamenei has made it clear that any deal
Tehran signs must not cross his red lines, which include increasing Irans uranium enrichment
capacity to nineteen times what it is today. This is a misrepresentation. What Khamenei was
referring to was Irans eventual enrichment capacity in the relatively distant future. This capacity is
to be achieved after the expiration of the comprehensive agreement when Irans nuclear program
will be free of limitations.
Dubowitz also states a discredited story. Specifically, he refers to cheating by

Iran after the November 2013 Geneva Accord was signed. What is the alleged cheating
about? The IAEA had reported that Iran had intermittently been feeding natural uranium gas into
a single so-called IR-5 centrifuge at a research facility. IR-5 is a more advanced version of Irans
currently operating centrifuges. David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International
Security in Washington, had interpreted it as cheating by Iran. The reality is that the Geneva
Accord and its Joint Plan of Action permit Iran to continue its research on more
advanced centrifuges. Irans obligation, which it has lived by, is not installing such
centrifuges. After this was pointed out, Albright retreated, declaring that the test was in
violation of the spirit of the Accord. Who is moving whose goalposts, again?
Washingtons hawks risk missing another chance at a sensible nuclear agreement

or dtente with Iran, one that would dramatically change the dynamics of the
turbulent Middle East for the better. Instead, they seem to think they can drive a proud
nation to surrender. Theyve been wrong beforeand their latest salvo suggests they dont
realize they may be wrong again.
Stefan Bauschard
60
Talks are working now both sides are willing to

compromise and fending off Congressional pressure is the
key
Vaez, 12/11/14 senior analyst at the International Crisis Group (Ali, Iran Nuclear Talks: The
Beginning of the Endgame? http://blog.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/2014/12/11/irannuclear-talks-the-beginning-of-the-endgame/
Theres much disappointment about the failure to agree a deal that would solve Irans differences
with the international community over its nuclear program. Are we better off than when these
intense talks began 12 months ago, or not?
Ali: Yes, of course were better off. Going through the 11th hour enabled both sides to
gain a better understanding of each others real positions. It wasnt clear until the
very end which were real red lines, and which were artificial, maximalist ones.
Going forward, they wont need so much brinksmanship. They can now discern each
others core requirements, where they really cant move, and issues where there is a grey area in
which they can manoeuvre.
Whats the rationale for having such a long extension of the talks until 1 July 2015?
Each time you extend the talks you have to pay a political price for it, so they thought it was safer
to go with a longer extension with the aim of reaching a deal as soon as possible. Also renewing it
soon after the new U.S. Congress comes into office in January will be extremely difficult. Finally,
there is the UNs Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in May 2015; all of the key
negotiators and experts will be extremely busy with that, which is held only every five years. Add
to it Christmas and Iranian New Year holidays, and youll see that it actually is not that long.
Is it going to be an easy ride?
No. They have a very limited time to move this process forward without having to
fight with the new Republican-dominated Senate from January onwards. Congress
may want to impose new sanctions, which would be a real poison pill for the talks.
But now that positions are clear, they can focus on solutions and the conceptual problems that
remain.
These talks have been the most intensive between the U.S. and Iran since the 1979 Iranian
revolution. Is the process actually beneficial just in itself?
Without a doubt. The fact that they are on speaking terms has already resulted in the parties
being able to contain some of the tensions in the Middle East. And now they know each other
personally and better understand each others positions, views, and domestic political constraints.
A lot of personal trust has been built up, which is important if you take into
account the great wall of mistrust between the two states.
How will the next months differ from the last twelve months?
A key issue is the balance between bilateral U.S.-Iran discussions and multilateral ones. In
Geneva last year we got an interim agreement in three months because the U.S. and Iran did
their homework in Oman, in secret negotiations. They then took that to the multilateral framework
in Vienna, despite a little bump here and there, for instance the French being unhappy thinking
that the Americans worked behind their backs. Now weve had a year of talks just to get an
understanding of where we are standing. The P5+1/EU3+3 negotiators wanted everybody on the
same page. Perhaps it could have gone faster and precious time could have been saved. To
speed things up, Crisis Group thinks we need to go back to the Geneva process, have the U.S.
and Iran (as the main stakeholders in the nuclear talks and rivals for influence in the Middle East)
hammer out their problems together, then take it back to the group and get everybody on board.
Will the new period be affected by any new domestic constraints in Tehran or
Washington?
The Iranian negotiators have an easier time managing this than the Americans.
The domestic Iranian consensus that has taken shape around the necessity of
resolving the nuclear issue is still there. The newspapers, the officials, have all
expressed support of the negotiating team. Perhaps even more important, they have a
common vision of their Plan B: throwing the blame onto the Americans in order to try to erode the
Stefan Bauschard
61
sanctions, which requires that they look reasonable and flexible in the talks. Its very different
for the U.S. side. Congress has some powerful voices already advocating for more
pressure, saying that Iran will not respond to pressure, but will respond to huge pressure. The
Obama administration will probably be able to hold back the current lame-duck Congress from
imposing new sanctions, but as of next year when the Republican-dominated Senate is seated,
this will become extremely difficult. Thats why the wild card is Washington, not Tehran.
Even if a deal is difficult, maintaining negotiations is

important to prevent prolif and military strikes
Pessin, 12/28/14 (Al, Voice of America Press Releases and Documents, Tough Iran Talks
to Resume in 2015, Factiva, JMP)
Iranian officials say they have no intention of obtaining nuclear weapons, but they have a large
nuclear program and want a bigger one, and that raises concerns in the international community.
Experts say the dispute will not be any easier to settle next year.
"It's hard to see what would change to make a deal any more likely next year when
they couldn't reach a deal in the past 12 months of negotiations," says Mark
Fitzpatrick from the International Institute for Strategic Studies .
But he adds it's important to keep negotiating anyway .
"Without diplomacy Iran's program would not remain capped. We would be back
in a cycle of confrontation and crisis that could lead to Iran getting closer
to a nuclear weapon and could lead to military action ," says he.
But Fitzpatrick and others say the interim accord, reached in late 2013, is not good
enough for the long term.
Trita Parsi, an Iranian-American author and activist with the National Iranian American
Council, agrees.
"The interim deal, even if it may be attractive to both sides right now, probably is
not sustainable in the long run because the political landscapes on both sides are
going to be somewhat unforgiving and not permit this to be extended over and
over again," says Parsi.
It doesnt matter whether or not theres a final agreement

talks keep Iran at the table, and freeze the nuclear
program. Only new sanctions legislation will wreck the
process and cause Iranian prolif
Pillar, 11/24/14 - non-resident senior fellow at Georgetown University's Center for Security
Studies,[2] as well as a nonresident senior fellow in the Brookings Institution's Center for 21st
Century Security and Intelligence (Paul, What Really Matters About Extension of the Iran
Negotiations National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/what-really-mattersabout-extension-the-iran-negotiations-11732)
The single most important fact about the extension of the nuclear negotiations
with Iran is that the obligations established by the Joint Plan of Action negotiated a
year ago will remain in effect as negotiations continue. This means that our side
will continue to enjoy what these negotiations are supposed to be about:
preclusion of any Iranian nuclear weapon, through the combination of tight restrictions on
Iran's nuclear program and intrusive monitoring to ensure the program stays peaceful. Not only
that, but also continuing will be the rollback of Iran's program that the JPOA achieved, such that
Iran will remain farther away from any capability to build a bomb than it was a year ago, and even
Stefan Bauschard
62
farther away from where it would have been if the negotiations had never begun or from where it
would be if negotiations were to break down.
Our sidethe United States and its partners in the P5+1got by far the better side of the
deal in the JPOA. We got the fundamental bomb-preventing restrictions (including most
significantly a complete elimination of medium-level uranium enrichment) and enhanced
inspections we sought, in return for only minor sanctions relief to Iran that leaves all the major
banking and oil sanctions in place. If negotiations were to go on forever under these terms, we
would have no cause to complain to the Iranians.
But the Iranians do not have comparable reason to be happy about this week's development. The
arrangement announced in Vienna is bound to be a tough sell back in Tehran for President
Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif. The sanctions continue, and continue to hurt, even though
the Iranian negotiators have conceded most of what they could concede regarding restrictions on
the nuclear program. There will be a lot of talk in Tehran about how the West is stringing them
along, probably with the intent of undermining the regime and not just determining its nuclear
policies.
That the Iranian decision-makers have put themselves in this position is an

indication of the seriousness with which they are committed to these negotiations.
This week's extension is of little use to them except to keep alive the prospect that
a final deal will be completed. Also indicating their seriousness is the diligence
with which Iran has complied with its obligations under the JPOA. The
International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed today Iran's compliance
with its final pre-November 24th obligation, which had to do with reducing its stock of lowenriched uranium in gaseous form.
Because the P5+1 got much the better side of the preliminary agreement, the P5+1 will have to
make more of the remaining concessions to complete a final agreement. The main hazard to
concluding a final deal is not an Iranian unwillingness to make concessions. The

main hazard is a possible Iranian conclusion that it does not have an interlocutor
on the U.S. side that is bargaining in good faith.
We push the Iranians closer to such a conclusion the more talk there is in Washington about
imposing additional pressure and additional sanctions, as people such as Marco Rubio and
AIPAC have offered in response to today's announcement about the extension of negotiations.
We have sanctioned the dickens out of Iran for years and are continuing to do so, but the only
time all this pressure got any results is when we started to negotiate in good faith. Surly
sanctions talk on Capitol Hill only strengthens Iranian doubts about whether the U.S.
administration will be able to deliver on its side of a final agreement, making it less, not more,
likely the Iranians would offer still more concessions. Any actual sanctions legislation
would blatantly violate the terms of the JPOA and give the Iranians good reason to
walk away from the whole business, marking the end of any special restrictions on
their nuclear program.
Indefinite continuation of the terms of the existing agreement would suit us well,
but completion of a final agreement would be even betterand without one the
Iranians eventually would have to walk away, because indefinite continuation certainly does not
suit them. And besides, the sanctions hurt us economically too. To get a final agreement does not
mean fixating on the details of plumbing in enrichment cascades, which do not affect our security
anyway. It means realizing what kind of deal we got with the preliminary agreement, and
negotiating in good faith to get the final agreement.
Multiple political incentives are driving a deal now

Bhadrakumar, 12/18/14 - served in the Indian Foreign Service for three decades and served as
ambassador to Uzbekistan and Turkey (M.K., Iran nuclear deal within grasp
http://jkalternativeviewpoint.com/jkalternate/?p=7295)
Stefan Bauschard
63
The US-Iranian negotiations for a nuclear deal are slated to resume on Monday
amidst growing optimism that this could be the end of the year-long endgame
under way, and an accord is in sight, finally. The US secretary of state John Kerry
recently said that the effort will be to reach an accord even before the extended deadline of endJune.
The target is to reach a political agreement by March 1, 2015 and a comprehensive agreement by
July 1. To be sure, if there was any disappointment that the deal couldnt be struck yet after
intense talks began an year ago, that has dispelled. The mood in Tehran bazaar is bullish,
according to New York Times, sensing that a deal with the US is in the works.
The main reason for this growing optimism is that the two sides have a good idea
by now of each others red lines and also the grey area where give-and-take is
possible. In sum, there is no more a need for brinkmanship or grandstanding.
A first-hand American account captured the increasingly relaxed mood: At a human level its very
interesting to watch the evolution of these talks. Slightly more than a year ago, it was impossible
to imagine that the parties [US and Iranian diplomats] would mingle with each other in such a
relaxed manner and would call each other Hey Bob and Hey Abbas. They bump into each
other at the breakfast buffet and joke about the watery scrambled eggs or the giant chocolate
croissants. Obviously the Iranians avoid pork and alcohol, but they share everything else. There
may not be trust at the political level but there now is significant trust at a personal level. Theyve
spent so many hours with each other that now they are intimately familiar with one anothers body
language and mood. In the last days in Vienna, even the U.S. and Iranian foreign ministers were
meeting alone, as they no longer felt the need for the EU mediator.
The respective red lines are: a) Iran insists on the right to industrial-scale nuclear enrichment
and wants sanctions to be lifted and not merely suspended; b) the US wants the breakout time
(time needed for Iran to develop one nuclear weapon) to be not less than a year and is eager to
retain in some measure the leverage of sanctions to ensure Irans commitment to any deal.
Besides, new salients have appeared. For sure, the US and Iran are already working
together (without acknowledging so) to ease regional tensions in the Middle East, which in
turn instills mutual confidence at the negotiating table.

Second, the US partners within the P5+1 (European allies, Russia and China) are
eager to settle the Iran nuclear issue and move on with Irans full integration with the
international community.
Third, steadily, an Iranian domestic consensus has formed as regards the imperative
need to resolve the nuclear issue. Fourth, there is, possibly, a certain easing of
Israeli opposition to an Iran deal (that is, any deal that allows Irans enrichment program to
continue in any form).
Stefan Bauschard
64
A2: Deal Bad/Doesnt Stop Prolif

Diplomacy is comparatively more likely to avoid war even
if imperfect
Johns, 1/22/15 - Johns serves on the Council for a Livable World Advisory Board and is a former
deputy assistant defense secretary (John, Avoid new sanctions now and keep Irans nuclear
program in check The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/230271avoid-new-sanctions-now-and-keep-irans-nuclear-program)
While the politics, slogans and sound bites usually rule the day in Washington, the president
reminded Congress that he doesnt have to run for office again. Instead, his diplomatic efforts with
six world powers and Iran are in pursuit of a historic opportunity to increase our national and
global security without yet another war. In spite of steady diplomatic progress to deny Iran a
nuclear weapon, some hardliners in Congress are seeking to scuttle any deal. Indeed,
Republicansand a few Democratshave said they wish to pass a new sanctions

bill in the coming weeks while the talks are ongoing a risky move that experts say will
most likely derail this delicate diplomatic process.
From the facts on the ground perspective, considerable progress has been made over
the past year in rolling back Irans nuclear program. To begin with, the interim
agreement froze the program in place. Since then, Irans nuclear stockpile has
been sharply reduced. Iran has agreed to an internationally monitored cap on the enrichment
of uranium. Nuclear sites that were previously off-limits are now subject to
international inspections and the frequency of inspections have been increased overall.
The diplomatic record has similarly demonstrated results. In addition to the historic
interim agreement, in September 2013, presidents Obama and Rouhani had the first direct
conversation between US and Iranian heads of state in 35 years. And for almost an entire year,
the US and its allies have remained united with Russia and China in pursuing a diplomatic
outcome while enforcing strict economic sanctions on Iran despite the fact that these countries
often have differing perspectives and international agendas.
The bottom line is that Iran is significantly further away from a nuclear weapon today
than it was one year ago. Whats more, these results reflect a surprising turnabout from the
preceding decade in which Irans capabilities grew steadily while the major powers were divided
on how to respond.
Granted, the election of Rouhani has made an enormous difference. His predecessor Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad staked his political career on confrontation with the West, but Ahmadinejads
policies brought nothing but ruin to the Iranian economy. In response, Rouhani ran on a platform
committed to improving relations with the West and won in a landslide.
Though these are all very positive developments, we still have a long way to go. Decades of
hostility and mistrust wont change overnight. Wed be fools not to proceed with great
caution and make sure that every aspect of any agreement is fully verifiable.
However, those who want to torpedo the critical progress that has been made are
using tough talk that simply doesnt line up with the facts.
To begin with, there are those who are demanding another round of sanctions despite the fact
that neither our allies, nor our own negotiating team, nor the Russians or Chinese, support such a
move.
Indeed, another round of sanctions would most likely split the international
coalition that has been critical to success and principally benefit the Iranian
hardliners who are most vocally opposed to Rouhanis overtures to the West. Even
more fancifully, some have argued that the US should be prepared to force China and Russia to
support further sanctions. This may sound tough, but it is utterly implausible.
Even more unrealistic are those agitating for military strikes. Serious national security
professionals understand that only a negotiated outcome is realistic. Michael Hayden, the former
Stefan Bauschard
65
CIA director and NSA chief, noted that in the Bush administration, The consensus was that
[attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent an Iran that will spare
nothing to build a nuclear weapon.
As the president said last night, There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and I
keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran. But new sanctions passed by this
Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy failsalienating America
from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again.
We must prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The best chance at doing
so is to support the presidents challenging, but necessary, diplomatic talks that
continue to make steady progress and yield verifiable results.
Having started negotiations, the United States should finish them. Reaching a deal
will not only restrain the Iranian nuclear program, but could help restrain
others in the future . As frustrating as it is, Congress is going to have to summon the
patience to let diplomacy work. Applying additional sanctions may feel cathartic for
congressmen like Sen. Rubio, but only a deal can end the Iranian nuclear program.
Deal arrests the worst elements of Irans nuclear program

and stops a US attack on Iran. No deal kills negotiations
Steve Chapman, 1-25, 2015, Chapman is a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, Chicago
Tribune, An Iran deal is nothing to fear, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ctiran-nuclear-weapons-deal-perspec-0125-20150123-column.html DOA: 1-26-15
Obama has good reason to promise to veto the sanctions bill if it passes. Josh Rogin and
Eli Lake of Bloomberg View report that Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, is "telling U.S.
officials and lawmakers that a new Iran sanctions bill in the U.S. Congress would tank the
Iran nuclear negotiations." (The Mossad publicly denied the story.) The critics have not been
happy since the six nations negotiating with Iran (the United States, France, Britain, Russia,
China and Germany) reached an interim deal more than a year ago, and they are not happy that
the talks have been extended after failing to settle all the issues. But that framework is a big
improvement on what went before. Iran had to agree to a number of real limits -- freezing
the number of its centrifuges; neutralizing its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium,
which can readily be converted to weapons-grade material; and granting greater access to
international inspectors. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which does inspections
on a daily basis, affirms that the regime has complied with its obligations under the
interim accord. Obama overstated his case in the State of the Union address when he declared
that "we've halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear
material." Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, says it's more
accurate to say we have "halted the most worrisome projects that Iran has." There's no
guarantee the talks will ultimately produce an agreement that will make it sufficiently difficult and
time-consuming for Iran to build a bomb. The Iranians know that U.S. enemies that lack nuclear
weapons (like Iraq) are more likely to be invaded than countries that have them (like North
Korea). They are not likely to forfeit such a useful capability without strong reasons. One is
escaping the economic sanctions imposed by the world for its nuclear activities. Another is
avoiding a pre-emptive strike by the U.S. or Israel. But sanctions have a poor record of diverting
nations from policies they see as vital for survival. A bombing raid would only delay the nuclear
weapons quest, while giving the regime more reason than ever to persist in it. Iran may be
prepared to accept a deal that would greatly lengthen the time it would need to "break out" to
acquire nuclear weapons. But it clearly isn't going to completely surrender that option forever.
Hawks have much invested in the belief that force is the only useful tool in countering adversaries
and that Obama is a naive appeaser. It would be a huge embarrassment if diplomatic pressure
and hard bargaining by the administration produced a deal putting nukes beyond Iran's reach
indefinitely. Such an accord would also shelve the option of attacking Iran, a longtime
dream of neoconservatives. Before the Iraq invasion, a British official quipped, "Everyone wants
Stefan Bauschard
66
to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." Former United Nations Ambassador John
Bolton insists an attack by Israel "is the only way to avoid Tehran's otherwise inevitable march to
nuclear weapons." In truth, there is a plausible deal that would stop that march -- and give us
plenty of time to act should it ever resume. If what the critics really want to do is close the road
to a peaceful outcome, though, they've got the right idea.
Current agreement working, new sanctions kill lit

Laurent Fabius et al, 1-22-15, Fabius is France's Minister of Foreign Affairs and International
Development. Philip Hammond is Britain's Foreign Secretary. Frank-Walter Steinmeier is
Germany's Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs. Federica Mogherini is High Representative of the
European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, French Embassy, Leaders Call for
Diplomacy with Iran to be given a chance, http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Leaders-call-fordiplomacy-with , DOA: 1-26-15
In November 2013, after many months of negotiations, the E3+3 (France, Germany and Britain,
together with the United States, Russia and China, a partnership also referred to sometimes as
the P5+1) and Iran reached an interim agreement on Iran's nuclear programme. This agreement
has had three main benefits.
First, it has stopped the progress of the most sensitive elements of Iran's nuclear programme.
Under the Joint Plan of Action agreed to by Iran and the six partners in the talks, which are
being coordinated by the European Union, Iran has ceased production of its most highly
enriched uranium, limited its production of new centrifuges for enriching uranium and
refrained from installing additional centrifuges. Iran has also agreed to cease progress
towards bringing on line the nuclear reactor at Arak. As a result, Iran today is further away
from obtaining enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon than before the negotiations.
At the same time, the international community has gained improved access to Iran's
nuclear facilities, allowing the world to verify whether Iran is living up to its commitments.
Whereas previous inspections only occurred once every few weeks, the International
Atomic Energy Agency is now able to conduct daily inspections of the Natanz and Fordow
facilities, and the Arak reactor is now subject to monthly inspections. And last but not least,
the interim agreement has given us time and space to try to negotiate a long-term
settlement to the Iranian nuclear issue, which is critical for the future of international and
regional security. This progress would have been impossible without the international consensus
on the threat posed by Iran's nuclear programme and the unity with which we have acted.
Together, the international community built a sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating
table. Today, the IAEA continues to verify that Iran is meeting its commitments. In exchange,
we are fulfilling our commitment to provide Iran with limited sanctions relief, even as we continue
to enforce our core sanctions regime and keep the pressure on Iran. And, during the past year,
the six partners have worked in close consultation with each other and with our close
allies to keep negotiating - to see if we can achieve a comprehensive and lasting solution
to the threat of a nuclear Iran. Our objective remains clear. We want a comprehensive solution
that both recognizes the Iranian people's right to access peaceful nuclear energy and allows the
international community to verify that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon. Any agreement must
provide concrete, verifiable and long-lasting assurances that Iran's nuclear programme is and
will remain exclusively peaceful. Nothing less will do. It is now up to Iran to make a strategic
choice between open-ended cooperation and further isolation.
To be sure, difficult challenges lie ahead, and critical differences between Iran and the
international community must be addressed. That is why we extended the negotiating
window until later this year.
In this context, our responsibility is to make sure diplomacy is given the best possible chance to
succeed. Maintaining pressure on Iran through our existing sanctions is essential. But
introducing new hurdles at this critical stage of the negotiations, including through
additional nuclear-related sanctions legislation on Iran, would jeopardize our efforts at a
critical juncture. While many Iranians know how much they stand to gain by overcoming
Stefan Bauschard
67
isolation and engaging with the world, there are also those in Tehran who oppose any nuclear
deal. We should not give them new arguments. New sanctions at this moment might also
fracture the international coalition that has made sanctions so effective so far. Rather than
strengthening our negotiating position, new sanctions legislation at this point would set
us back.
Stefan Bauschard
68
A2: TPA
Iran before TPA
Inside U.S. Trade, 1/9/15 (HATCH SEES SENATE ACTION ON TPA EARLY THIS
YEAR; WILLING TO DISCUSS TAA, Vol. 33, No. 1, Factiva)
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said this week he expects the
Senate to act early this year on a Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill, and signaled he is open to
discussing demands by congressional Democrats that it be accompanied by an extension of the Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) program.
"It'll be a little while , but we intend to do it this year and early this year," Hatch told
reporters on Jan. 7 at the Capitol, when asked how quickly he expected the Senate to take up TPA.
bipartisan TPA legislation will be
introduced
He said
"pretty soon," but that it
remained to be seen whether that can happen before the end of

January .
Staff for Hatch, Finance Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) and House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Paul
Ryan (R-WI) in December resumed discussions on potential changes to a TPA bill introduced in the last Congress (Inside
U.S. Trade, Dec. 12, 2014).
The earlier TPA bill was negotiated by Hatch, former Finance Chairman Max Baucus, and former Ways & Means
Chairman Dave Camp. But Wyden subsequently pushed for changes on enforcement and transparency language, along
with a renewal of the TAA program (Inside U.S. Trade, Nov. 2, 2014).
Although Hatch has been critical of renewing TAA in the past, he said he would be willing to "look at it" since Democrats
are likely to insist on moving it in conjunction with TPA.
"Well I'm certainly for TPA, and I'm realistic enough to realize that we're certainly going to have to look at TAA. I'm not
enthusiastic about it, because I think it won't work as well as it should," he said.
The omnibus funding bill that Congress passed in December extended the existing TAA program for workers until the end
of fiscal year 2015 by delivering $710.6 million in funding. The bill did not reauthorize TAA, but guidelines from the White
House's Office of Management and Budget allow TAA and other federal programs to continue operating without statutory
reauthorization as long as Congress appropriates funds.
But Hatch signaled he was cool to the changes on TPA sought by Wyden, though he said he was open to discussing
them. He also said he expected to reintroduce the Camp-Baucus-Hatch bill, adding, "or if we can make it better, I'd be
glad to do it." "I'm a little a bit loath to accept those changes" proposed by Wyden, he said. "We worked this out [in a
bipartisan way], over a long period of time and we ought to kind of stick with it, while we have something that really was
bipartisan, and is bipartisan, and will work. But I'll chat with Senator Wyden about these things," he said.
Hatch, who was formally anointed as Finance Committee chairman on Jan. 8, said he had not yet met with Wyden since
the new Congress got underway, but plans to do so at least once a month and possibly more frequently. He also said he
will hold weekly meetings with Ryan.
Separately, Wyden declined to comment on when he expected a new TPA bill to be released, or on the talks between his
office and Republican committee staff on potential changes. "I never negotiate in public or have discussions in public," he
said. "I do expect to work very closely with Chairman Hatch and Chairman Ryan closely on a variety of issues, and I'll
probably just leave it at that."
Hatch met on Wednesday with Finance Republicans to discuss his priorities for this
Congress, which he identified as trade, tax reform and some health care
provisions, Finance Committee member Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) told Inside U.S. Trade on Jan. 7.
But Hatch at that meeting did not give any indication of when the
committee might move on trade legislation , or which of the three issues
was his highest priority, according to Portman.
That said, Hatch publicly made clear last month that advancing the trade policy agenda, including TPA renewal, will be
one of the first issues the Finance Committee addresses in 2015, and that these issues will take up much of the
committee's agenda early in the year (Inside U.S. Trade, Dec. 19, 2014).
One scenario under discussion is to have the Finance Committee kick off the legislative process on TPA, although
sources said in mid-December that there had not yet been a decision on that process. Under this scenario, after the
Finance vote, action would shift to Ways & Means, the House floor and then back to the full Senate.
Separately, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at a Jan. 7 press briefing declined to provide
a more precise timeline for when the Senate might take up a TPA bill, though he
reiterated that congressional Republicans want to work with President Obama on trade. "[W]e think this is an area where
Stefan Bauschard
69
we can make progress, and you can look for us to act on TPA. I can't give you the exact timing right now, or if I could, I
probably wouldn't yet," he said.
But Sen. John Thune (R-SD), a Finance member and the chairman of the Senate
Republican Conference, subsequently told reporters on Jan. 7 that TPA could be scheduled
for Senate floor time "fairly early" in the year.
He noted that the first item on the Senate's agenda is a bill to approve the Keystone
XL pipeline, consideration of which will take "probably a couple of weeks." After that, the Senate may
tackle legislation relating to Iran sanctions , changes to the 2010 health care
law and terrorism risk insurance, which the Senate passed on Jan. 8. But Thune hinted that
consideration of TPA could come sometime

after that .
Obama treading carefully on trade to avoid angering
Dems
Feldmann, 1/20/15 (Linda, The Christian Science Monitor, Obama liberated? Five things to
watch in State of the Union, Factiva, JMP) ***Note --- William Galston is a scholar at the
Brookings Institution and a former Clinton White House policy adviser
Obama's mixed message to Democrats. For
the most part, Obama will be all Democrat all the

time Tuesday night. And in proposing a restructuring of the tax code that goes after inherited wealth and raises
the tax rate on capital gains for the wealthiest Americans, he is taking a bow to the liberal Elizabeth
Warren wing of the Democratic Party.
But Obama's desire to conclude international trade deals that Democrats oppose
is a sore point within the party, and Obama will choose his words carefully .
"You don't poke a stick in your own party's eye on national TV," Mr. Galston says. "But
what you can do is emphasize your willingness to cooperate and compromise in
the areas where that's possible."
Issues dont cost capital until the finish line

Drum, Mother Jones Political Blogger, 2010,
(Kevin, "Immigration Coming Off the Back Burner?", Mother Jones, 3-30) motherjones.com/kevindrum/2010/03/immigration-coming-back-burner 9-29-11
Not to pick on Ezra or anything, but this attitude betrays a surprisingly common misconception about political issues in
general. The
fact is that political dogs never bark until an issue becomes an
active one . Opposition to Social Security privatization was pretty mild until 2005, when George
Bush turned it into an active issue. Opposition to healthcare reform was mild until 2009, when
Barack Obama turned it into an active issue. Etc. I only bring this up because we often take a look at
polls and think they tell us what the public thinks about something. But for the most part,
they don't.1 That is, they don't until the issue in question is squarely on the table and both sides have spent a couple
of months filling the airwaves with their best agitprop. Polling data about gays in the military, for example,
hasn't changed a lot over the past year or two, but once Congress takes up the issue in
earnest and the Focus on the Family newsletters go out, the push polling starts, Rush Limbaugh picks it up, and Fox
News creates an incendiary graphic to go with its saturation coverage well, that's when the polling will tell
you something. And it will probably tell you something different from what it tells you now. Immigration was
bubbling along as sort of a background issue during the Bush administration too until 2007,
when he tried to move an actual bill. Then all hell broke loose. The same thing will happen
this time, and without even a John McCain to act as a conservative point man for a moderate solution. The political
environment is worse now than it was in 2007, and I'll be very surprised if it's possible to make any serious progress on
Stefan Bauschard
70
immigration reform. "Love 'em or hate 'em," says Ezra, illegal immigrants "aren't at the forefront of people's minds." Maybe
not. But they will be soon.
No action till April

Inside U.S. Trade, 12/12/14 (TRADE COMMITTEE AIDES RESTART WORK ON PENDING
TPA BILL, WITHOUT LEVIN STAFF factiva)
Republican aides for the congressional trade committees last week resumed working with staff for
outgoing Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) to change a pending Trade
Promotion Authority (TPA) bill, but without the participation of staff for House Ways & Means
Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-MI), according to informed sources.
The staff working on the TPA bill are hoping to unveil the revised legislation as
early as January or February, although that is an ambitious timeline. One pro-TPA
lobbyist said that he did not expect committee action on a fast-track bill until
mid-April .
Stefan Bauschard
71
A2: Need Sanctions

Diplomacy, not sanctions stopping Iranian proliferation.
New sanctions kill negotiations
Antony Blinken, 1-22-15, Deputy Secretary U.S. Department of State, Committee on Senate
Foreign Relations, Testimony, Iran Nuclear Negotiations, DOA: 1-25-15,
http://www.state.gov/s/d/2015/236156.htm
JPOA = Joint Plan of Action, the current nuclear agreement
Before the JPOA, despite an unprecedented sanctions regime, Iran's nuclear program was
rushing toward larger enriched uranium stockpiles, greater enrichment capacity, the
production of plutonium that could be used in a nuclear weapon, and ever shorter breakout time.
Today, as the result of the constraints in the JPOA, Iran has halted progress on its nuclear
program and it has rolled it back in key areas for the first time in a decade, and it has
allowed us to have greater insight and visibility through more intrusive and more frequent
inspections. Before the JPOA, Iran had about 200 kilograms of 20 percent enriched
uranium in a form that could be quickly enriched into a weapons-grade level.
It produced much of that material at the Fordow facility, buried deep underground. Today,
Iran has no such 20 percent enriched uranium - zero, none. It has diluted or converted
every ounce, suspended all uranium enrichment above 5 percent and removed the
connections among centrifuges at Fordow that allowed them to produce 20 percent
enriched uranium. Before the JPOA, Iran was making progress on the Arak reactor, which,
if it had become operational, and together with a reprocessing facility, would have
provided Iran with a plutonium path to a nuclear weapon. Once fueled, the Arak facility
would be challenging to deal with militarily. Today, Arak is frozen in place. Before the
JPOA, Iran was enriching uranium with roughly 10,000 centrifuges and had another
roughly 9,000 installed centrifuges ready to bring into operation. The JPOA froze Iran's
enrichment capacity and those 9,000 additional centrifuges are still not operating.
Before the JPOA, inspectors had less frequent access to Iran's nuclear facilities. Today,
the JPOA has enabled IAEA inspectors to have daily access to Iran's enrichment facilities
and a far deeper understanding of Iran's nuclear program. They have been able to learn
things about Iran's centrifuge production, uranium mines, and other facilities that are
important to monitoring Iran's program going forward and to detecting any attempts to
break out. And the IAEA has consistently reported that Iran has lived up to its
commitments under the JPOA. Just as we have asked Iran to uphold its commitments under
the JPOA, we have lived up to our commitment of providing Iran with limited relief - about $14 to
$15 billion from the start of the JPOA through this June. But that relief is dwarfed by the vast
amounts denied to Iran under the existing sanctions regime. For example, in 2014 alone, oil
sanctions deprived Iran of more than $40 billion in oil revenue - well over twice the estimated
value of the relief under the JPOA. And what oil revenues Iran is allowed to generate go into
heavily restricted accounts that now encumber more than $100 billion dollars. Virtually the
entire sanctions architecture remains in place. Indeed, throughout the existence of the
JPOA, sanctions pressure on Iran has not decreased - it has increased. Congress is now
considering legislation to impose additional sanctions on Iran, to be triggered by the
failure of negotiations. I know that the intent of this legislation is to further increase pressure on
Iran and, in so doing, to strengthen the hand of our negotiators to reach a comprehensive
settlement. While the administration appreciates that intent, it is our considered judgment and
strongly held view that new sanctions, at this time, are unnecessary and, far from
enhancing the prospects for successful negotiations, risk fatally undermining our
diplomacy and unraveling the sanctions regime so many in this body have worked so hard
Stefan Bauschard
72
to establish. New sanctions are unnecessary because, as I noted a moment ago, Iran
already is under acute pressure from the application of the existing sanctions regime. In
recent months, that pressure has only grown stronger with the dramatic drop in oil prices.
Should Iran refuse a reasonable deal or cheat on its current commitments under the JPOA,
the Senate and House could impose additional measures in a matter of hours. The
Administration would strongly support such action. Iran is well aware that an even sharper
sword of Damocles hangs over its head. It needs no further motivation. So new sanctions
are not necessary. And their passage now would put at risk the possibility of getting a final
deal over the next several months. Let me explain why.
As part of the JPOA we also committed, within the bounds of our system, not to impose
new nuclear-related sanctions while the JPOA is in effect. Absent a breach by Iran, any
new sanctions enacted by Congress would be viewed by Iran and the international
community as the U.S. breaking out of the understandings of the JPOA. This includes
"trigger" legislation that would tie the actual implementation of new sanctions to the
failure to reach a final arrangement. Even if such sanctions are not, arguably, a technical
violation of the JPOA, we believe they would be perceived as such by Iran and many of our
partners around the world. This could produce one of several serious unintended
consequences that, far from enhancing America's security, would undermine it.
First, the passage of new sanctions could provoke Iran to walk away from the negotiating
table, violate the JPOA and start moving its nuclear program forward again. Instead of
keeping its uranium enrichment at under 5 percent, as it has since the JPOA was signed, Iran
could start enriching again at 20 percent, or even higher. Instead of capping its stockpile of
roughly 4 percent low enriched uranium at pre-JPOA levels, Iran could grow it rapidly. Instead of
suspending substantive work on the Arak heavy water reactor, Iran could restart its efforts to bring
this reactor on line. Instead of providing unprecedented access to international inspectors at its
nuclear facilities, it could curtail/reduce IAEA access, inhibiting our ability to detect a breakout
attempt. Instead of limiting work on advanced centrifuges, it could resume its efforts to increase
and significantly improve its nuclear capabilities in a relatively short timeframe. Second, even if
Iran does not walk away or promptly returns to the table, its negotiators are likely to adopt
more extreme positions in response, making a final deal even more difficult if not
impossible to achieve. Third, if our international partners believe that the United States
has acted prematurely by adding new sanctions now in the absence of a provocation or a
violation by Iran - as most countries surely would - their willingness to enforce the exiting
sanctions regime or to add to it in the event negotiations fail will wane. Their support is
crucial. Without it, the sanctions regime would be dramatically diluted. Up until now, we've kept
other countries on board - despite it being against their economic interest -- in large part because
we've demonstrated we are serious about trying to reach a diplomatic solution. If they lose that
conviction, the United States, not Iran, would be isolated, the sanctions regime would collapse
and Iran could turn on everything it turned off under the JPOA without fear of effective,
international sanctions pressure in response.
Stefan Bauschard
73
Stefan Bauschard
74
Iran DA Background
Jeremy Diamond, CNN January 23, 2015,
Obama still hates the new, watered-down Iran sanctions bill,
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/22/politics/new-iran-sanctions-bill/
For months, Senate aides and their bosses pored over sanctions legislation aimed at ratcheting
up pressure on Iran as it negotiates the fate of its nuclear program with the U.S. and five other
world powers. The result of that redrafting process is a significantly watered-down version of the
Nuclear Free Iran Act of 2013, also known as Kirk-Menendez, that addresses much of the
criticism the bill faced last year. Though crafted to build increased support from previously
skeptical lawmakers, it remains staunchly opposed by the White House and world leaders
involved in the negotiations with Iran. The White House is standing by its vow to veto the
legislation, claiming it would undermine the chance for a diplomatic solution. As opposed to last
year's version, the new bill cuts out the more stringent requirements that could have triggered
sanctions amid talks, and would only bring down sanctions on Iran if negotiators don't reach a
deal to roll back its nuclear program by the July deadline, according to a copy of bill obtained by
CNN. The language could change, as it heads to the banking committee for consideration next
Thursday. The new bill would trigger sanctions starting July 6, which would continue to ratchet up
every month that there is no deal. Per the legislation, Obama would only be able to prevent those
new sanctions if waiving them would help achieve a comprehensive deal with Iran, and if he can
certify that Iran is not moving closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon. Last year's bill drew support
from 60 senators, but never got a vote on the Senate floor because of the White House veto
threat and several Democrats slowly withdrew their support. But a Republican majority in
Congress has breathed new life into the push to pass a sanctions bill. It's also created a fiercely
contentious environment that saw Sen. Bob Menendez, D-New Jersey, one of the lead authors of
the bill, accuse the White House of using talking points "straight out of Tehran." Meanwhile, the
White House and opposition groups to pull out all their firepower, with Obama threatening a veto
before the bill even became public. The White House maintains the bill's latest iteration would
violate the spirit of negotiations with Iran, torpedo the talks and then give Iran cause to point the
finger at the U.S. for failing to reach a diplomatic solution. "Why is it that we would have to take
actions that would jeopardize the possibility of getting a nuclear deal over the next 60 or 90
days?" Obama asked at a press conference last week in which he threatened to veto a bill. A
senior congressional aide with knowledge of the legislation said the goal is to "create more
positive pressure" and takes into account the year of negotiations that have passed. The bill was
stripped down in recognition of Obama's veto threat, the aide said. While the bill removed a slew
of the most controversial provisions, the aide said the bill will be subject to new amendments on
the Senate floor which could add more fangs to the current version or simply add more bipartisan
bonafides. The chance for additional amendments on the floor may be what prompted Sen. Mark
Kirk, R-Illinois, to sign onto with the current, more stripped-down version. In an interview earlier
this month, Kirk told CNN he was pushing for as few changes to his original proposal as possible,
saying, "The more changes, the worse." Among the changes, the new bill strikes language that
would have required Iran to "dismantle its illicit nuclear infrastructure, including enrichment and
reprocessing capabilities and facilities" in a final deal. Instead, the new bill explains that it is "the
sense of Congress" that a final deal should "reverse the development" of that nuclear
infrastructure.
Stefan Bauschard
75
Veto Override Threshold

Menendez may only need one more vote
Linda Chavez, 1-23-15, Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of
an Ex-Liberal." Democratic Revolt on Iran, Creators Syndicate
Wishful thinking? Maybe. But 11 of the current Democrats in the Senate have co-sponsored Iran
sanctions legislation along with Menendez. If all of them could be persuaded to vote to overturn a
veto, Menendez would need only one more, assuming the GOP ranks hold firm. After all, the
stakes are high enough that fear of what Iran could do with a nuclear arsenal might trump the
usual partisan politics.
A few Democrat votes will decide the outcome

Josh Rogin and Eli Lake, 1-22-15, Bloomberg News, Mossad opposes new Iran sanctions,
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-22/netanyahu-mossad-split-divides-u-scongress-on-iran-sanctions DOA: 1-25-15
On Capitol Hill, the fight over how to proceed against the administration is far from over. The
Senate Banking Committee was supposed to mark up the Kirk-Menendez bill on Thursday,
but the session was delayed by one week. Some Senate staffers told us that Democrats
asked for the delay because Menendez wants to get more Democrats to commit to his bill
before he goes public. A main pitch of the Kirk-Menendez bill is that it could garner bipartisan
- even perhaps veto-proof - support in the face of Obama's disapproval. So far, most
Democrats have stayed on the sidelines, especially after Obama and Menendez got into a
heated argument over the bill at last week's private Democratic retreat. Kirk and Menendez
softened their proposal to make it more palatable to Democrats, by giving the president more
flexibility than the previous version and providing the administration waivers after the fact. Corker,
Graham and McCain are trying to woo Democrats to their side by arguing that avoiding
sanctions language altogether and simply mandating that the Senate get a vote is a more
bipartisan approach. Only a handful of Democrats will support any Iran bill, so competition
for these votes is heated.
Stefan Bauschard
76
Gitmo
Stefan Bauschard
77
Shell
Obama spending PC to close Gitmo, will succeed now
WPX News, 1-25, 14 http://www.wpxnews.com/world/obamaaposs-renewed-push-to-closeguantanamo-prison-is-seen-as-promising-h3753.html DOA: 1-25-14
President Obama has recharged his campaign for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention
center with a method legal experts say holds out new hope of reaching that signature
objective of his presidency. Soon after years of becoming thwarted by Congress from
transferring detainees cleared of terrorism suspicions from the remote prison at the U.S. naval
base in southern Cuba, the administration has in significantly less than 3 months resettled
27 of the extended-held foreign guys in countries as far-flung as Estonia, Oman and
Uruguay.
Dozens more are ready to be moved out as soon as other nations agree to take them, a
diplomatic process that received an unexpected boost last month with an appeal by Pope Francis
for predominantly Catholic nations to assistance empty the prison.
Obama has also spotlighted the staggering costs of keeping the offshore detention operation
more than $3 million a year per detainee, by the Pentagon's calculation in his effort to counter
Republican opposition to closing Guantanamo. And he has pointed out the failure of the U.S.
military tribunal there to bring any of its most notorious terrorism suspects to justice.
Drawing down Guantanamo's population from its present 122 currently fewer than half the
245 detainees Obama inherited from the Bush administration is a essential element of the
president's fresh push to provide on the guarantee he created as a candidate to close
Guantanamo inside a year of taking office, lawyers and human rights advocates say.
A second vital step necessary to close the prison, they say, is moving the seven "highvalue detainees" charged in main terrorism situations out of the dysfunctional military
commissions and into U.S. courts.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-confessed Sept. 11 mastermind, has been in U.S. custody for
12 years and at Guantanamo due to the fact 2006.
"It's shocking that there is not much more public pressure to attempt these people," said Shayana
Kadidal, senior managing lawyer on the Guantanamo project at the Center for Constitutional
Rights, a New York-based public interest law firm.
He was referring to the five men whose prosecution has been mired in pretrial challenges to the
war court that rights advocates see as an finish run around U.S. law. "If they had been brought to
United States in 2009, these trials would be lengthy more than," he mentioned.
Obama has for years opposed indefinite detention at Guantanamo for the moral stain it has left
on America's reputation, but the money problem may provide superior prospects for wearing
down those opposed to closing the prison.
"It tends to make no sense to spend $3 million per prisoner to hold open a prison that the globe
condemns and terrorists use to recruit," the president mentioned during his State of the Union
address Tuesday night. "It is not who we are. It is time to close Gitmo."
In the 13 years considering the fact that President George W. Bush produced the prison and
military tribunal, only eight militant foot soldiers from among the 780 males taken to Guantanamo
have been tried and convicted, and only three of those remain at the prison to serve their terms.
Hundreds swept up in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the frenzied early days immediately after the
Sept. 11 attacks had been years later deemed by military authorities to pose no threat to U.S. or
allied security. But the releases slowed after reports emerged of some freed detainees joining Al
Qaeda and other extremist groups.
The recidivism rate remains a topic of heated disagreement, with Republican lawmakers
contending 30% of former captives are believed to have taken up with militant groups, and the
administration saying the percentage is half that at most.
Obama's first executive order following inauguration in January 2009 named for a six-agency task
force overview of all detainees and for choices on no matter if they had been to be prosecuted,
Stefan Bauschard
78
deemed eligible for transfer or release, or categorized as "indefinite detainees" mainly because of
lingering suspicion but also little proof to prove criminal acts.
Fifty-4 prisoners nevertheless at Guantanamo were cleared for release by the job force in
January 2010. Congress, in the meantime, had imposed a ban on detainee movements or
relocation of terrorist trials to U.S. soil.
A slight easing of those restrictions took impact in late 2013, and State Department diplomats are
intensively engaged in negotiating repatriation or resettlement, lawyers for some of the captives
mentioned.
But obtaining nations that will take in the detainees is a struggle, legal analysts say, pointing to
the Bush-era condemnation of the prison's residents as "the worst of the worst" militants on the
planet.
An added 35 prisoners remain at Guantanamo immediately after becoming designated for
indefinite detention, to be reconsidered annually by a multi-agency Periodic Evaluation Board.
That figure is down by at least two now after a Saudi and a Kuwaiti have been lifted from the
"forever prisoners" list and repatriated in November.
That contingent is the most problematic for Obama, as each Congress and rights groups
supportive of closing Guantanamo object to administration proposals to bring them to some
underused U.S. prison. The groups criticize the thought as merely transferring an illegal detention
practice from Guantanamo to yet another venue.
Rights advocates, detainees' lawyers and other critics of Obama's failure to close Guantanamo
have accused him of sacrificing that trigger for other priorities, namely healthcare reform and
economic crisis intervention in the course of the very first years of his administration. But even
five years after the missed closure deadline, those critics say they are encouraged by the
president's resumed focus on ridding the nation and his legacy of the prison and war crimes
tribunal.
"Privately, the level of commitment has been even much more intense, as he is telling
other officials that this is his top rated target now and raising it with foreign leaders," said
Chris Anders, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, who has monitored
the legal battle more than Guantanamo for a decade.
But closing Guantanamo will demand Obama to expend political capital on the situation
during his last two years in office, Anders mentioned. Congress has tabled a bill that would
impose new restrictions on Guantanamo releases.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), sponsor of the bill and 1 of Obama's fiercest critics on the detention
problem, lately said his administration "is additional interested in emptying Guantanamo so that it
can close it than defending the national safety interests of the United States."
"He's going to have to take some unpopular measures if he wants to do this," Anders stated, such
as working with his veto power to defeat tactics by opponents such as attaching riders to ought
to-pass legislation such as the annual defense authorization bill.
Stefan Bauschard
79
Keystone
Keystone vote is coming but Obama will veto
Laura Barron-Lopez 1/23, "Senate sets final Keystone vote next week," 1-23-2015,
TheHill, http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/230503-senate-sets-final-vote-on-keystonefor-next-week, DOA: 1-24-2015, y2k
Following a tense night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
legislation to green-light the Keystone
moved to limit debate on

up a final
XL oil-sands pipeline, setting
vote next week. Senators stayed at the Capitol past midnight Thursday as McConnell swiftly
moved to table a series of Democratic amendments to the pipeline bill, which has
now been under debate in the Senate since the new Congress convened at the start of the month. Minutes
before midnight, McConnell filed cloture on the underlying bill, a procedural move that will trigger an additional 30 hours of
debate before a final vote. Democrats grumbled that the majority leader did not allow for debate on their amendments
offered up on Thursday evening.
Thursday night's session could offer a preview of the
kind of back and forth expected to emerge between Democrats and

Republicans as the new Congress continues with the GOP at the helm. The Senate is
expected to approve the bill authorizing construction of the Keystone pipeline. A
final vote could come as early as Tuesday . President Obama has pledged to veto
the legislation.
BUT- PC is key to sustain it

Juliet Eilperin 12/3, Washington Post Staff, Obama, looking to mend fences with Congress,
is reaching out to Democrats, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-looking-to-mendfences-with-congress-is-reaching-out-to-democrats/2014/12/03/3fdf9078-7a40-11e4-9a276fdbc612bff8_story.html, DOA: 1-13-15, y2k
President Obama
success
and his closest aides have determined that their best chance of
in the next two years will
depend on improved relationships on Capitol
Hill, but their behind-the-scenes efforts are more focused on Obamas own
party rather than the Republicans who are about to take full charge of Congress in January.
Obamas attention on congressional Democrats , allies whom he once regarded as needing
little attention, marks a shift in his view on how to deal with Congress. The president now
sees his path to success as running through Hill Democrats , a group that has been
disenchanted by the treatment it has received from the White House over the years. The remedial work has included
frequent calls to Democratic leaders since the midterm elections and comes as Republicans prepare to take control of
both chambers for the first time since Obama took office. While the president and GOP leaders have pledged to seek
common ground, Obamas use of executive action to alter immigration enforcement procedures and other steps have
already angered Republicans, making significant legislative accomplishments more difficult. And White House
officials are looking to Hill Democrats as a defense against Republican

efforts to undo key elements of Obamas legislative legacy, including the Affordable
Care Act, his immigration action and
climate policy . The presidents ability to
sustain the vetoes he is likely to issue will depend on whether he is able

to mend relations with
congressional
Democrats
many of whom blame the president for the
Stefan Bauschard
80
partys large midterm losses and persuade Republican legislators to work with him in a way that has eluded the two
parties for the past six years.
Plan devaststes PC (insert)

Keystone approval undermines US climate leadership
Henn 14, Director of Strategy & Communications-350.org, 350.org was founded by a group of
university friends in the U.S. along with author Bill McKibben, who wrote one of the first books on
global warming for the general public, Rejecting Keystone XL Crucial to U.S. Credibility in Global
Climate Talks, 12/11, http://350.org/press-release/rejecting-keystone-xl-crucial-to-u-s-credibilityin-global-climate-talks/ DOA: 1-13-15, y2k
As delegates from nearly 200 countries and indigenous tribal nations gather in Lima this
week to develop a framework for a historic international deal to combat
catastrophic climate change, President Obama and Secretary Kerry have an
opportunity to cement the role of the U nited S tates as a global leader on
climate issues . The key step? Rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. We have seen positive steps
taken by the U.S. in recent weeks, and that should be applauded, said Nauru Ambassador Marlene Moses, who chairs
the Association of Small Island States. Now is not the time to call the superpowers commitment to tackling this crisis into
question by letting this dirty, myopic, and irresponsible project go forward. Activists will be pressuring Secretary Kerry on
the pipeline as he arrives in Lima on Thursday. At 11:00am Lima time this Thursday, climate groups are hosting a #NoKXL
twitter storm to flood the #COP20 hashtag with tweets urging rejection. At 3:30pm, activists will host a demonstration
against the tar sands inside the COP20 conference center. John Kerry Big cop20 nokxl-01 Citizens around the world are
calling out for leadership in the global effort to fight climate change as we move towards Paris, and the recent actions
taken by the Obama administration suggest they may be listening.
Approving the Keystone XL
pipeline would swing a huge hammer to the delicate credibility the

U.S. has built in recent months , said David Turnbull, Campaigns Director of Oil Change
XL is a climate disaster and completely inconsistent with
the U.S. commitments being put forward at these talks, said 350.org Communications Director
International. Keystone
Jamie Henn, who is at the talks in Lima. The U.S. can join the world in pushing for progress or be sidelined as a climate
laggard like Canada and Australia. Approving Keystone XL would undermine U.S. credibility in this
process. The Obama Administration has made incredible progress of late ; but
approving the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline cuts against the Presidents commitment to
fight climate change and ability to bring the rest of the world along to
safeguard our future , said Jake Schmidt, International Program Director, Natural Resources Defense
Council. The controversial proposed pipeline project would be a disaster for the climate by supporting the massive
expansion of Canadas dirty tar sands, which the Canadian government has made clear they have no plans to regulate. It
has become a test of the Obama Administrations commitment to fighting climate change, both at home and abroad.
Former EU Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaardhas said that rejecting Keystone would be an extremely
strong signal for the Obama administration. Many
credit the success of this round of climate
talks compared to past summits to the willingness the U nited S tates has
shown to make meaningful progress on climate , through the Obama Administrations
proposed power
plant regulations and the climate accord recently reached between
the U.S. and China . When world leaders gather again next year in Paris to
finalize a global climate deal , having rejected Keystone XL would send a
strong signal
climate disasterand
that the United States is prepared to take initiative to keep fossil fuels in the ground to avert
it would be a model for other world leaders to similarly steer
Stefan Bauschard
their countries
81
away from dirty fuels toward cleaner ones. Approving the pipeline
or allowing the process to continue to drag on would
undermine
credibility
could threaten to negate the
going into these crucial talks, and
the Obama Administrations
important progress being made on the global stage to leave a

livable planet for future generations.
US climate cred solves extinction

Louis Klarevas 9, Professor for Center for Global Affairs @ New York University, 12/15,
Securing American Primacy While Tackling Climate Change: Toward a National Strategy of
Greengemony, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louis-klarevas/securing-americanprimacy_b_393223.html
As national leaders from around the world are gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark, to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference,
America's
current energy
policies
- but
the time is ripe to re-assess
within the larger framework of how a new approach
on the environment will stave off global warming and shore up American
primacy By not addressing climate change
.
more aggressively and creatively,
the U S is squandering
nited
tates
an opportunity to secure global primacy for the next few generations to

come.
the greening of American strategy
its
To do this, though, the U.S. must rely on innovation to help the world escape the coming environmental meltdown. Developing the key technologies that will save the planet from global warming will allow the U.S. to
outmaneuver potential great power rivals seeking to replace it as the international system's hegemon. But
must occur soon
. The U.S., however, seems to be stuck in time, unable to move beyond oil-centric geo-politics in any meaningful way. Often, the gridlock is portrayed as a partisan difference, with
Republicans resisting action and Democrats pleading for action. This, though, is an unfair characterization as there are numerous proactive Republicans and quite a few reticent Democrats. The real divide is instead one between realists and
liberals. Students of realpolitik, which still heavily guides American foreign policy, largely discount environmental issues as they are not seen as advancing national interests in a way that generates relative power advantages vis--vis the other
major powers in the system: Russia, China, Japan, India, and the European Union. Liberals, on the other hand, have recognized that global warming might very well become the greatest challenge ever faced by (hu)mankind. As such, their
thinking often eschews narrowly defined national interests for the greater global good. This, though, ruffles elected officials whose sworn obligation is, above all, to protect and promote American national interests. What both sides need to
by becoming a lean green fighting machine the U.S. can bring together
liberals and realists to advance a collective interest which benefits every
understand is that
, mean,
actually
nation, while at the same time, securing America's global primacy well into the
future
. To do so,
the U.S. must re-invent itself as not just your traditional
hegemon, but as history's first ever green hegemon Hegemons

.
are countries that
dominate the international system bailing out other countries in times of global
-
crisis
result from
, establishing and
maintaining
obligations
the most important international
free-riding and cheating global
institutions and covering the costs that

,
. Since 1945, that role has been the purview of the United States. Immediately after World War II, Europe and Asia laid in ruin, the global economy
The U.S., emerging

the least scathed by the systemic crisis of fascism's rise, stepped up to the
challenge and established the postwar (and current) liberal order
With the U.S.
becoming bogged down
the future of American
hegemony seems to be facing a serious contest potential rivals required resuscitation, the countries of the free world needed security guarantees, and the entire system longed for a multilateral forum where global concerns could be addressed.
. But don't let the world
"liberal" fool you. While many nations benefited from America's new-found hegemony, the U.S. was driven largely by "realist" selfish national interests. The liberal order first and foremost benefited the U.S.
in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, running a record national debt, and failing to shore up the dollar,
now
the water -
wish to challenge
acting like sharks smelling blood in
the U.S. on a variety of fronts. This has led numerous commentators to forecast the U.S.'s imminent fall from grace. Not all hope is lost however
. With
the impending systemic crisis of global warming on the horizon, the U.S.
again finds itself in a position to address a transnational problem in
a way that will benefit both the international community
collectively
and the U.S. selfishly. The current problem is two-fold. First, the competition for oil is fueling animosities between the major powers. The geopolitics of oil has already emboldened Russia in its 'near
abroad' and China in far-off places like Africa and Latin America. As oil is a limited natural resource, a nasty zero-sum contest could be looming on the horizon for the U.S. and its major power rivals - a contest which threatens American primacy
Stefan Bauschard
82
and global stability. Second, converting fossil fuels like oil to run national economies is producing irreversible harm in the form of carbon dioxide emissions. So long as the global economy remains oil-dependent, greenhouse gases will continue
to rise. Experts are predicting as much as a 60% increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the next twenty-five years. That likely means more devastating water shortages, droughts, forest fires, floods, and storms. In other words, if global
competition for access to energy resources does not undermine international security, global warming will. And in either case, oil will be a culprit for the instability. Oil arguably has been the most precious energy resource of the last half-century.
But "black gold" is so 20th century. The key resource for this century will be green gold - clean, environmentally-friendly energy like wind, solar, and hydrogen power. Climate change leaves no alternative. And the sooner we realize this, the
better off we will be. What Washington must do in order to avoid the traps of petropolitics is to convert the U.S. into the world's first-ever green hegemon. For starters, the federal government must drastically increase investment in energy and
environmental research and development (E&E R&D). This will require a serious sacrifice, committing upwards of $40 billion annually to E&E R&D - a far cry from the few billion dollars currently being spent. By promoting a new national project,
the U.S. could develop new technologies that will assure it does not drown in a pool of oil. Some solutions are already well known, such as raising fuel standards for automobiles; improving public transportation networks; and expanding nuclear
and wind power sources. Others, however, have not progressed much beyond the drawing board: batteries that can store massive amounts of solar (and possibly even wind) power; efficient and cost-effective photovoltaic cells, crop-fuels, and
hydrogen-based fuels; and even fusion. Such innovations will not only provide alternatives to oil, they will also give the U.S. an edge in the global competition for hegemony. If the U.S. is able to produce technologies that allow modern, globalized
societies to escape the oil trap, those nations will eventually have no choice but to adopt such technologies. And this will give the U.S. a tremendous economic boom, while simultaneously providing it with means of leverage that can be
employed to keep potential foes in check. The bottom-line is that the U.S. needs to become green energy dominant as opposed to black energy independent - and the best approach for achieving this is to promote a national strategy of
greengemony.
Stefan Bauschard
83
Affirmative
Stefan Bauschard
84
Offshore Oil Push Thumper

Obama pushing offshore drilling now
Darren Goode, 1-27-15, Politico Pro, Interior Plan: Open Atlantic Coast to Offshore Drilliing,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/atlantic-oil-natural-gas-drilling-obama-114631.html?
hp=b1_c3 DOA: 1-28-15
The Obama administration proposed an unprecedented opening of the waters off the
Atlantic coast for oil and natural gas drilling on Tuesday, even as it put vast areas in the
Arctic off-limits. The Interior Departments Bureau of Ocean Energy Managements new five-year
offshore drilling strategy calls for opening the offshore stretch from Virginia to Georgia, an area
the energy industry says could hold large amounts of oil and gas. The move further muddies the
picture around the administrations oil and gas policy but could deflect some criticism from
Republicans and the energy industry that President Barack Obama has burdened the industry
with new regulations and slowed the production on federal lands while also touting the nations
surge in production. It also sparked anger from environmentalists and from people who live on
the coast and fear a potential oil spill could threaten the beaches that are the centerpiece of the
tourism industry. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell told reporters the proposal was a balanced
approach, but she stressed that it was only a draft. It is not final, were in the early stages of what
is a multi-year process, Jewell said, cautioning that some regions listed in it may be narrowed or
taken out entirely. Tuesdays proposal would expand a previous plan by Interior that would have
allowed drilling off Virginias coast but was withdrawn after BPs April 2010 Deepwater Horizon
disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The new plan would place off-limits previously deferred areas in
the Chukchi and Beaufort seas off Alaska, a move that drew an outcry on Monday from Alaskas
congressional delegation. Ahead of the strategys release, the American Petroleum Institutes Erik
Milito said it would be irresponsible to leave out all planning areas where significant discoveries
are possible. But overall, it would be a victory for an oil and gas industry that has long
sought to expand its reach along the Eastern seaboard, as well as governors from states such as
North Carolina and Virginia who have pressed for drilling off their coastlines as well.
Online privacy bill thumper

TonyRomm,12815,PoliticoPro,WhiteHousePrepsExpansiveOnlinePrivacyBill,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/onlineprivacybillwhitehouse114696.html#ixzz3QCO2vnOZ
DOA:12915
TheWhiteHouseispreparingtosendasweepingonlineprivacyproposaltoCongressthatwould
restricthowcompanieslikeGoogleandFacebookhandleconsumerdatawhilegreatlyexpandingthe
poweroftheFederalTradeCommissiontopoliceabusesideasthatarelikelytoincitestrong
oppositioninCongress.Theforthcomingmeasureslatedforreleasenextmonthwouldrequirelarge
Internetcompanies,onlineadvertisers,mobileappmakersandotherstoaskpermissionfromconsumers
beforecollectingandsharingtheirmostsensitivepersonalinformation,accordingtothreesourcesbriefed
byadministrationofficials.Companiesthatcollectdataforonepurposewouldinsomecasesneedtoget
usersignoffbeforedeployingitinamarkedlydifferentway,thesourcessaid.
Stefan Bauschard
85
Bipartisanship NU
Boehners Netanyahu invitation killed bipartisanship
Mark Shields, 1-25, 15, Shields is a columnist for Creators Syndicate (creators.com).
MARK SHIELDS: Boehner's dangerous gamble, Biloxi Sun Herald,
http://www.sunherald.com/2015/01/24/6034423/mark-shields-boehners-dangerous.html DOA: 125-15
Bipartisanship, that widely admired virtue so sadly rare in our nation's politics, has been -- since
1948, when President Harry Truman, rejecting the counsel of his own Cabinet secretaries,
recognized the newborn nation -- the hallmark of United States support for the state of Israel. But
that era is now over. It ended officially when, without so much as consulting with either the
White House or the State Department, the Republican speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives, John Boehner, unilaterally invited the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin
Netanyahu, to address a joint session of Congress on March 3, just two weeks before the
Israeli national elections, in which the embattled Netanyahu is fighting for his political life. For
Netanyahu, Boehner's invitation, guaranteeing him global coverage and enhanced stature, is both
the ideal campaign media event and a political gift. For the majority of Israeli voters who,
according to polls, are not supporters of Netanyahu's, the invitation from the House speaker can
be reasonably seen as unwelcome American meddling in their country's election. More
importantly, Netanyahu has publicly and fiercely opposed President Barack Obama's
sustained efforts to negotiate with Iran while maintaining tough sanctions on that country, an
agreement ensuring that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons. For many years, Netanyahu's
pitch to American visitors remained consistent: "This is 1938. Iran is Germany, and it is about to
go nuclear." Possibly angered by the Obama administration's public pressure on Israel to stop
the increasing surge of Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank, Netanyahu made no effort to
hide his support for Republican Mitt Romney over Obama in the 2012 presidential election.
Earlier, he had been quoted in the Israeli papers indicting then-top Obama advisers Rahm
Emanuel and David Axelrod for being "self-hating Jews." Let us review the situation. The speaker
of the House, a Republican, has deliberately provided a head of state who is manifestly
unfriendly to the president of the United States, a Democrat, a unique forum to oppose and
to criticize the foreign policy of the United States' administration, probably to urge Congress to
resist any nuclear agreement the United States might reach with Iran and, for good measure, to
stiffen current sanctions against that country even more. Boehner is not a naive man. Yet by this
reckless political stunt, which embarrasses the Democratic president, he is undermining the
very spirit and record of bipartisanship that, for nearly seven decades, has characterized
United States friendship toward Israel. Boehner's embrace and endorsement of Netanyahu
risks turning U.S.-Israeli policy into just another partisan divide like same-sex marriage or
global warming. For interfering in the national elections of a close ally, for undermining the
admittedly vulnerable prospects of a peaceful resolution of tension with Iran, for possibly
alienating the coalition opposing Netanyahu, which could organize the next Israeli government,
and for irresponsibly practicing easy politics over difficult statesmanship, John Boehner may
score a few cheap points. But by what he alone has chosen to do, the speaker is, sadly, a
diminished and less admirable public man.
Stefan Bauschard
86
Thumpers
Massive clash on foreign policy issues
Jessica Wehrman, 1-25, 15, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, Obama, GOP fight over global hot
spots, http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/01/24/obama-gop-fight-over-global-hotspots.html DOA: 1-26-14
President Barack Obama and the Republican-led Congress are heading toward a standoff
over additional sanctions on Iran. They disagree on an appropriate response to Russia's
continued threats against Ukraine. And even the decision to have Congress authorize
force against the Islamic State terrorist group -- something that Republicans and Democrats
agree should happen -- is fraught with tension, with the GOP asking why Obama has not yet
sent them a request to authorize force. With increasing instability around the world, Congress
and Obama are seemingly at odds on how to deal with even the most minor international
situations. Obama's sixth State of the Union address seemed only to underscore those divisions.
"He says we're safer -- we're not," said Rep. Mike Turner, R-Dayton, a senior member of the
House Armed Services Committee. Their disagreement on foreign-policy matters came to a
head last week when House Speaker John Boehner, R-West Chester, invited Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a vocal critic of Iran, to address Congress on the threat of
radical Islam and Iran even as Obama pushes ahead with negotiations aimed at spurring Iran
to dismantle parts of its nuclear program.
Post & Courier, 1-23, 2015 , Congress rates input on Iran deal,
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150124/PC1002/150129629/1022/congress-rates-irandeal-input
Congress has a legitimate interest in foreign affairs, especially when they involve agreements
with foreign governments. President Barack Obama is making a mistake when he categorically
rejects a bipartisan demand that he consult Congress regarding any nuclear agreement with
Iran. Mr. Obama has threatened to veto a bill proposed by Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the new
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that would require the president to submit
any agreement with Iran on limiting its nuclear program to Congress for approval. The president
also has threatened to veto a bipartisan bill sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the
former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, with backing by as many as 66 senators.
It would apply new, stronger sanctions on Iran if it fails to reach an agreement this year or
if it makes an agreement but fails to carry it out. Indeed, the president got visiting British Prime
Minister David Cameron to telephone key senators urging them to oppose the bill. The
administration says it would cause Iran to back out of negotiations and kill the deal. To say the
least, the president s threats, especially regarding the Corker bill, are contrary to the spirit of
compromise hailed by Mr. Obama in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, when
he said, I commit to every Republican here tonight that I will not only seek out your ideas, I will
seek to work with you to make this country stronger. In stiff-arming Congress, the president
is not only failing to cooperate with the GOP, he is disregarding a significant number of
legislators from his own party. It is against that background of executive intransigence on Iran
that the Republican invitation to Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of
Congress should be judged.
Paul Richter and Lisa Mascaro, 1-22-15, LA Times, Israel is drawn into US tussle over sanctions
on Iran, http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-nuclear-20150122-story.html DOA: 126-15
Stefan Bauschard
87
In an unusual display of high-stakes arm twisting, both the White House and its critics in
Congress have called in foreign leaders to help lobby U.S. lawmakers on whether to impose new
economic sanctions on Iran amid tense negotiations on its nuclear program. President Barack
Obama fired the first round last week when visiting British Prime Minister David Cameron
confirmed at a White House news conference that he had telephoned several members of the
Senate to urge them to heed Obama's plea to hold off on any new sanctions for fear of derailing
the talks. On Wednesday, House Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, fired back, announcing
that he had invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposes any concessions
to Iran, to address a joint session of Congress on Feb. 11 - and notified the White House only
after the Israeli leader had accepted. The visit promised to renew confrontation between Obama
and Netanyahu, who have clashed repeatedly over the last six years over Iran and an array of
other issues. When the Israeli leader takes the podium for his third address to Congress, he will
be challenging a White House foreign policy priority from only a few blocks away. "This is only
going to exacerbate tensions," said Robert Danin, a veteran U.S. diplomat in the Middle
East who is now with the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations. It would also sharpen
tensions between the newly installed Republican-led Congress and the administration, he
said. The White House made no secret of its displeasure. Press secretary Josh Earnest
suggested both Boehner and Netanyahu had committed a breach of diplomatic protocol.
Stefan Bauschard
88
AUMF Answers
Obama not pushing ISIS resolution
Jessica Wehrman, 1-25, 15, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, Obama, GOP fight over global hot
spots, http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/01/24/obama-gop-fight-over-global-hotspots.html
Even on an issue that Obama and Republicans agree -- the need for Congress to authorize
military force against Islamic State -- the GOP is still frustrated. Republicans say Obama
called for an authorization of force as long ago as last fall but has yet to send them a
formal request. "Typically what happens is the president would send to Congress a resolution
and then campaign to get it passed," Boehner said in an interview last week. "But I do think
there's going to be a resolution at some point in the Senate, I think we'll have hearings and we're
going to have a good debate."
Stefan Bauschard
89
Democrat Unity NU
Democrats not unified now
Alex Brown, 1-28-15, National Journal, In Philadelphia, Divided Democrats in Search of Unity,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/history-wine-and-the-president-await-democrats-inphiladelphia-20150128 DOA: 1-28-15
HouseDemocratscongregatingherewillgetabriefingfromtheirtopcampaignleadersThursday.The
officialtheme:"WeAreInThisTogether."Yetinthemidstofaretreatdesignedtofosterunity,
Democratsaredealingwithinternaldividesoneconomicpolicy,politicalstrategy,andevenparty
rules.WhileDemocratshavenotenduredtheopenwarthatfracturedHouseRepublicanranksthroughout
January,theyfacethebiggestGOPmajoritysince1928andplentyofquestionsonhowtohandlelifeas
theleastpowerfulcaucusintheCapitol.ThePhiladelphiagatheringisasteptowarddefiningtheparty's
2015,withabitofinspirationfromtheFoundingFathers.PresidentObamawillkeynotetheretreatwitha
speechThursdayevening,andevenhewillbebracketedbyintrapartyfoesonatleastonetopic.He's
expectedtopushfortradepromotionauthoritywhichwouldallowhimtonegotiatetradedealswithout
subjectingthemtocongressionalrevision.ButearlierinthedayattheSheratonSocietyHill,Rep.Rosa
DeLaurowillarguetheoppositesideoftheissuetohercolleagues.Democratswerealsosettohear
WednesdaynightfromAFLCIOPresidentRichardTrumka,whohascalledtradepromotionauthority
"undemocratic."MuchoftheretreatwillfocusonputtingsomemeatonthebonesofObama'smainState
oftheUniontheme."We'llhaveanopportunitytocomeoutoftherenotonlyunited,butalsoknowingthat
wewanttofollowinthefootstepsofthepresidentinfocusingonmiddleclasseconomics,"House
DemocraticCaucusChairmanXavierBecerrasaidbeforetheretreatbegan.Rep.SteveIsraeltheheadof
anewDemocraticmessagingtaskforcewillleadapanelonthatverysubject.FormerDemocratic
NationalCommitteeChairmanHowardDeanwillalsobeonthepanel,evenasDemocrats
aresplit
on
whethertheparty'seconomicfocusshouldbeaboutregulatingWallStreetandboostinglowincome
workers,orongrowingtheeconomyasawholeandlesseningthecountry'sregulatoryburden.
Stefan Bauschard
90
Republican Unity NY
Massive Republican infighting
Dana Milbank, 1-27-15, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/danamilbank-republicans-discover-that-it-isnt-easy-running-congress/201 DOA: 1-29-15
WhathashappenedsinceRepublicanstookfullcontrolofCongressthreeweeksagohasbeenlessa
stumblethanapratfallinvolvingthelegislativeequivalentofabananapeel,flailingarms,an
upendedbookcase,torndrapesandaslideacrossaladenbanquettableintoaweddingcake.On
Monday,arebellionbyHouseconservativesforcedBoehnertoscuttleplanstopassbordersecurity
legislationatopiconwhichRepublicanshadsupposedlybeenunified.Lastweek,arebellionby
RepublicanwomencausedBoehnertopullfromtheHousefloorabillthatwouldhavebanned
abortionsafter20weeks.MorethanoneHouseRepublicanhassincecomplainedaboutthefemalesin
thecaucus.Atthesametime,Boehnermanagedtoprovokeaninternationalincident,andsplitthe
AmericanJewishcommunity,byinvitingIsraeliPrimeMinisterBenjaminNetanyahutoaddress
CongressontheeveoftheIsraelielectionswithoutconsultingtheWhiteHouse.Theinvitation,
intendedtoboostprospectsfortoughnewsanctionsagainstIran,seemsinsteadtohaveemboldened
oppositiontothesanctions.IntheSenate,meanwhile,Democratsusedproceduralpowerstodelay
passageoftheKeystoneXLpipelinebillnewmajorityleaderMitchMcConnellstoppriorityafter
McConnellretreatedonhispromisetoallowfreewheelingamendments.TheRepublicanmajorityin
bothchambersremainsdividedoverthescopeoflegislationauthorizingtheuseofforceagainstthe
IslamicState,overabillgrantingPresidentObamanewtradepowers
andoverwhethertoforcea
showdownnextmonthandriskapartialgovernmentshutdowntoprotestObamasexecutive
actionsonimmigration.
Stefan Bauschard
91
TPA Aff Democrat Support NU

No support from Democrats now
New Zealand Herald, 1-29-15, Obama trade bid meets US resistance, DOA: 1-29-15
AseniorDemocraticsenatorscomplaintsyesterday,andnoisyprotesters,underscoredtheObama
Administrationschallengeinseekingcongressionalapprovalforenhancedpowerstoreachtrade
dealswithnationsincludingNewZealand.SenatorCharlesSchumersaidheworriednewtradedeals
wouldnothelpmiddleclassincomes.HealsosaidtheUnitedStatesmustdomoretopreventChinafrom
keepingitscurrencysvalueartificiallylow,enhancingChineseexportsanddampeningimports.Schumer
spoketoUSTradeRepresentativeMichaelFroman,whomadetheAdministrationspitchtotheSenate
FinanceCommittee.FromansaidCongressmustreturntradepromotionauthoritytotheWhiteHouseso
itcouldcutimportanttradedealswithPacificrimnationsandothers.Thatpower,sometimescalledfast
trackauthority,allowsPresidentstosendproposedtradeagreementstoCongressforyesornovotes,with
noamendments.Congresshassometimesgrantedsuchpowersbefore.ButmanyDemocrats,liberalsand
labourunionshavegrownincreasinglyhostiletotradedeals,sayingtheyreduceUSjobs.Severalanti
tradeprotestersinterruptedFromansopeningremarksandwereusheredoutbypolice.
Stefan Bauschard
92
Iran Aff T/O

The DA is dead Menendez wont even consider pushing
the bill until after March 24
Oren Dorrell, 1-27-15, USA Today, Senate Dems Oppose Iran Sanctions Vote Before March 24,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/27/senate-democrats-iransanctions/22401973/ DOA: 1-29-15
DemocratsontheSenateBankingCommitteemadeclearTuesdaytheyopposepassinganewIran
sanctionsbill,atleastuntilaMarch24deadlineforaframeworkagreementintheongoingnegotiations.
"Wewillnotbackanewsanctionsbillatthistime,"saidSen.RobertMenendez,DN.J.,whoco
authoredthesanctionsbillwithSen.MarkKirk,anIllinoisRepublican,thatwouldimposenewsanctions
ifIranfailstoagreetoadeal.PresidentObamahasthreatenedtovetoanynewsanctionsbillpassedbythe
RepublicancontrolledCongress.SuchabillwouldneedDemocraticsupporttoachievethe67votes
neededtooverrideapresidentialveto.MenendezsaidhesentaletterTuesdaytoObama,togetherwith
otherDemocraticcosponsorsofthebill,sayingtheywouldseektodelayanyvotebecausetheyfavor
givingtheadministrationmoretimetoreachadeal.ObamahassaidtheU.S.willdowhateverittakes
topreventIranfromobtaininganuclearweapon,butmoresanctionswouldharmthetalks.
Stefan Bauschard
93
Iran Aff Sanctions Wont Kill a Deal

Sanctions wont kill a deal, they push Iran to negotiate
Steve Huntley, 1-25-15, Obama Needs Congress to Seal Iran Deal, Chicago Sun Times,
http://chicago.suntimes.com/other-views/7/71/315934/obama-needs-congress-seal-iran-deal
DOA: 1-26-15
The latest clash comes over foreign policy. Obama opposes a bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by
Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., that would impose new sanctions
on Iran if current talks to stop Tehran's march to acquire nuclear weapons fails. A nucleararmed Iran would be a threat to international peace generally and specifically to the Middle East,
already roiled by bloody sectarian violence and terrorism, and to the one nation in the region with
Western, democratic values, Israel. Netanyahu would offer vital perspective about the Iranian
threat. Making the speech is not without political risk to him at home. He's facing an election in
March, and one issue is his handling of relations with Israel's most important ally. It's no secret
that he and Obama don't get along. The White House has already said Obama won't meet with
Netanyahu when he visits, using the excuse that it doesn't want to get involved in Israel's
election. Obama argues that the threat of new sanctions would alarm Iran and cause it to
break off talks. That's strange reasoning given that it was tough sanctions that drove
Tehran to the bargaining table. And Iran doesn't seem concerned about alarming U.S.
leaders by loudly proclaiming its "right" to a nuclear program, keeping inspectors away
from military and nuclear facilities, working to develop what can only be described as
long-range missiles, and announcing construction of two new nuclear plants.
Sanctions wont cause Iran to leave the talks

Manufacturing Close-Up, January 24, 2015 , Organization of Iranian-American Communities-US
Updates on Position on Iran Policy
As Congress decides on a soon-to-be-introduced Iran sanctions bill, the Organization of IranianAmerican Communities-US (OIAC-US) urged the responsible decision makers to avoid leniency
towards Iran. In its release, the group said that apologists and those who would rather take a
bad deal than to face the truth about Iran's belligerency offer us many reasons to concede further,
asking Congress to withhold action on additional sanctions. They tell us that Iran would walk
out of the talks, that more sanctions would adversely affect the Iranian people, and that
America would lose a historic opportunity to mitigate a national security threat. As desperate as
they are, the clerics cannot afford to walk away from the talks. They are negotiating from a
position of weakness. The fall in oil prices and the sanctions have terrified the mullahs.
They should not be let off the hook.
Stefan Bauschard
94
Iran Aff Prolif Internal Link Answer

Existing agreement not slowing proliferation
Linda Chavez, 1-23-15, Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of
an Ex-Liberal." Democratic Revolt on Iran, Creators Syndicate
The administration's negotiations have so far produced nothing but additional time for Iran to
build weapons. The interim agreement that the administration credits with "halting" Iran's nuclear
program allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium to 3.5 percent purity in unlimited quantities,
which is approximately 60 percent of the purity needed to produce weapons-grade material.
While the talks have dragged on, Iran has already enriched enough uranium to quickly produce
two bombs. Iran is expected to have enough enriched uranium to produce a third bomb by June,
when the deadline for a deal lapses though the administration has already signaled it will give
Iran more time. Iran is also pursuing enriching plutonium for nuclear weapons. Under the interim
agreement that governs the talks, Iran continues its work on the Arak heavy-water reactor,
building off site the parts that can quickly be assembled to make the reactor capable of enriching
plutonium to nuclear grade when it chooses. The Iranians also have announced they will build
two more light-water plutonium reactors. In addition, Iran continues toward development of an
ICBM. Recent analyses suggest they may have a system by the end of this year. Yet, the
president thinks the Iranians should be given still more time before they pay any price for their
subterfuge.
Iran just holding out for more concessions

Politico.com, January 23, 2015 , Time to Take It to Iran,
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/iran-yemen-coup-114532.html DOA: 1-26-15
The nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran appear stalemated. Meanwhile
Iran is on the march in the Middle East with its forces supporting the coup in Yemen, buttressing
the Assad war-machine in Syria, mediating between factions in Iraq, and plotting with Hezbollah
operatives on the periphery of Israel. Today, the American alliance system stands bruised and
battered while our friends in the region perceive Iran and its resistance-front galloping across the
region. These two simultaneous developments--the deadlock in nuclear talks and Iran's
aggressive moves in the region--are not coincidental. They are intimately linked, and that should
be a lesson for President Obama: The nuclear deadlock cannot be broken unless Washington
reengages in the myriad of conflicts and civil wars plaguing the region, particularly now that
Yemen is vulnerable and the Saudi royal family is in a state of turmoil following the death of King
Abdullah on Thursday. During the course of the nuclear negotiations over the past year,
Iran has been the beneficiary of a generous catalogue of concessions from the West. The
5-plus-1 has conceded to Iranian enrichment, agreed that Tehran need not scale back the
number of its centrifuges significantly or dismantle any facilities and could have an
industrial-size program after passage of a period of time. The Iranians have, during the
course of the ten years of negotiations, grown accustomed to having their interlocutors
return to the table with concessions meant to meet their mandates while offering only
limited compromises of their own. Despite that no agreement was achieved at the end of the
one year time-frame of the Joint Plan of Action--and the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei continues
to signal that Iran can live without an agreement. In fact, his negotiators are pressing for more
concessions while not offering any of their own.

Post Emory Ptix

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Post Emory Ptix

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Stefan Bauschard

January 29, 2015 Politics

Obamas State of the Union a strange thing happened : most of the

all-out Administration effort on TPP

and the fast-track bill, which would allow limited

Obama can bring enough

White House has recently increased its

TPA U/PC Key

Obama will secure TPA PC is key

wisdom in Washington goes something like this: Both the

Republican congressional leaders versus the majority of congressional

Obama has already succeeded in winning congressional approval for trade

Momentum for passage is building Obama is whipping

Under the leadership of National Economic Council Director Jeff Zients ,

the White House has set up an

Asked to elaborate on what these whispers were, Brady

TPA will pass---Obama is ratcheting up pressure and Dems

is targeting Democratic lawmakers who realistically would

vote for a TPA bill.

this operation shows the administration

there is a good chance that the Senate Finance Committee

expected to garner more Democratic support in Finance

than in Ways & Means. As a result,

momentum for passage while also

This approach could reduce divisiveness in the House

the administration would be making a

to both Democrats and Republicans

It's going to require his leadership to get this

and the Cabinet.

there are enough votes in Congress to get TPA

waiting for the Nebraska Supreme Court to rule on a lawsuit brought by

doesnt think Keystone is in the nations interest.

The president hasnt always been so publicly

Obama veto doesnt cost PC

Vetoing the bill wont

by seven percentage pointsover the last year, mainly because a

Democrats , for the first time, are now against it.

Dems wont vote on Keystone anyways---proves Obama

the process was not

The episode became so politically toxic , it now threatens to delay or derail

of the Keystone bill . On Friday, some frustrated Democrats

who support the pipeline are hinting they may withhold

Democrats cried foul , saying McConnell

bill . They suggested it might have something to do with the

session may be costly if it soured the mood among Democrats who

A2: Iran Sanctions Thumper

A2: TPA not k2 pivot

TPA Asia Wars Impact

Great-power rivalry is alive in Asia. Massive military investments along with

A2: No trade deals

global trading system. It is time for Congress to step up to the plate.

Global trade deescalates every conflict

Iran hawks hesitate on

overriding Obama; Obamas overtures to Senate Democrats

working on sanctions bills,

Obamas words appear to be sinking in.

are in touch with all of us.

A decision is expected in the near future, with a vote perhaps as early as

that its a tricky calculus to get to 67 votes when

the president is leaning so hard on Democrats to hold the line , which

deal, or just wants to see Obama lose, it has the

tries, we could see one of the most important legislative fight s of

could fracture the international movement to sanction Iran .

Democrats are not as open to