C.I.A. Director Says Iran’s Economic Peril Helped Drive Nuclear Deal

What this agreement is in a nutshell is telling a 2,000 year old civilization that if they agree to delay making a nuclear bomb for 10 years, we will let them do whatever else they want to from this point on. And we hope this "equal" deal will encourage their religious power structure to become secular. I don't think so.

US turnaround of 180 degree about middle east policy and signing a nuclear deal with Iran is a 'hogwash'. It's not president Obama who convinced Rouhani that sanctions have taken a toll on Iranian economy; contrary to that Rouhani won the Iranian election on the pretext that he will get the sanctions removed. It's quite interesting that Brennan could fool the Kennedy school students and the faculty.
US shift in the middle east policy is based on the fact that post second world war map of middle east has outlived. Now US/'west' wants to divide the middle east on sectarian ethnic denominations.... Shiitte/Alawite, Kudrdish, and Sunni. Daesh is providing an excellent opportunity to let the dream come true. Why didn't US intervene in Syria when the 'redline' was crossed ...Assad used chemical weapons 18 times and got away with the genocide of Syrian folks. When ISIS/ISIL was threatening to take Irbil in Iraq US ground troops were sent with aerial bombings, in a week time. Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Mali, Egypt....all have fallen one by one. Saudi Arabia ...welcome to the club of 'fallen states'!!!

Brennan isn’t the first CIA director to call his president’s views a “slam dunk”. There are critics, other than Netanyahu and Senate Republicans, who question the framework. Henry Kissinger and George P. Shultz wrote an article for the WSJ questioning aspects. To read The NYT and the comments is to suggest only fools like Netanyahu and Senate Republicans question the deal. The Washington Post didn’t even print an article about Brennan’s remarks. Economics didn’t stop the N. Koreans or force N. Viet Name to stop fighting. The Iranian economy was not in that bad a shape.
Someone is in overdrive and it is the President and the NYT.

Hmmm.

One the one hand Iran wants to annihilate Israel, to the glee and mirth of Arabs and other anti-Semites. On the other hand, Israel wants to be left alone, live, and create a democratic nation for a persecuted people. Same difference!

So Israel's foes are tinpot dictatorships, theocracies, corrupt regimes that torture and kill their own people. So what? Just because we know not of a single data point to validate the view that Iran wants peace - can our beliefs not trump reason or reality? Surely we can believe that Iranians (without a shred of evidence) mean well.

There must be analogies in history where great civilizations adopted moral equivalence and stopped standing for anything - as we are now doing. Were the consequences of this moral laxity and intellectual sloth good things? I wonder.

I totally get why Netanyahu is frothing at the mouth and doing everything he can (including consort with American neocons and rapture-seeking religious nuts and republicans - i.e., the 47% of America that voted for Romney) to scuttle Kerry.

But I am glad Brennan has an alternative view of why Iran is doing what it is doing.

Shame on us for sitting in the sidelines tut tutting sagaciously and pointing our collective fingers at Netanyahu.

Kalidan

Let's not forget that the CIA did not find out about Iran's nuclear capability until an Iranian terrorist group (Mujahadin) informed the world, what a failure!

So the Iranian economy was "destined to go down" and "six years of sanctions had really hit" leading Iran to come to Obama hat in hand. Not mentioned is the additional pressure that the plunge in oil prices would have created. So Obama decides to lift sanctions and pump billions into Iran's economy before negotiations even begin not understanding somehow that a weak opponent is more vulnerable than a strong one?

There doesn't seem to be any reason why Obama decided to begin negotiations with Iran when they were at their weakest rather than giving sanctions PLUS historic low oil prices a chance to work.

Iran doesn't have a friend in the world and has nothing of value to offer a world awash in oil - running out of places to store it. If we release hundreds of billions of dollars to them it will go directly into nukes and their terrorist proxies.

Brennan "hinted he had little expectation that the agreement would change Iran’s behavior in the region, including its sponsorship of terrorism".
There's a saying: "It takes two to tango"! Not only does the Shia Iran have to change its behaviour, the Sunni Arabs too!
If the Palestinian conflict were resolved, Israel wouldn't have to worry about the Hezbollah! If the Sunnis in the region would change their hawkish mind-set and don't suppress the Shiites in their countries, these Shia minorities perhaps wouldn't turn to Tehran for support!

Mr. Brennan backs Mr. Obama in a public address. How utterly surprising and unexpected.

However a careful reading between the lines shows that there might be certain inconsistencies between the views enunciated by Mr. Brennan and Obama policy.

The sanctions had serious economic implications for Iran. Does that not mean that perhaps more pressure might have been applied to get a deal addressing some of the issues raised by critics (to avoid mentioning Mr. Netanyahu, then let those views be those of Henry Kissinger and George Shultz in their WSJ op-ed piece http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iran-deal-and-its-consequences-1428447582 ).

And then there was the question of sabotage (US? Israel?). Mr. Brennan acknowledges that this worked too.

So all in all it still would have been possible to attempt a better deal as certain critics have pointed out. There were enough sticks still available before handing out carrots.

Mr. Brennan was pleasantly surprised at Iranian concessions, but as the article pointed out, the CIA has a spotted record in detecting covert nuclear sites. It missed Fordo (Israel and Britain did not) and it missed the reactor in Syria (Israel did not and took it out, imagine of Bashar al-Assad had nuclear weapons now).

And finally Mr. Brennan does not believe that the agreement will Iran's behavior in the region and lifting the sanctions will bolster that.

All this sounds like talking points of the critic who shall not be named.

NM wrote....As for Netanyahu's description of Rouhani as "a wolf in sheep's clothing, a wolf who thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the international community" -

I think both Netanyahu and Rouhani fall in the same category... 'wolf'. And there is a third contestant; folks know him pretty well!!!!

The leverage of future sanctions evaporates once you flood the Iranian economy with trade, cash and petro dollars fattening the country's reserves as well as the personal bank accounts of the regime's elites. Khamenei and his cronies have had little problem siphoning billions to fund illicit nuclear infrastructure and four proxy wars in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and now Yemen over the past decade. Iran also signed two previous agreements to allow monitoring and violated both in 2003 and again in 2006 and still hasn't complied with the IAEA right up until March of this year. To think Iran will be compliant is to believe in unicorns and the tooth fairy.

Give Netanyahu what he wants.

We take a walk. Let him to go it alone, wthout our help, our aid, our support.

Let him negotiate directly with Iran, not our problem if he can't. We don't get involved if his demands, up to him. We've always supported Israel, but Bibi says he can do better. Let him.

We can withdraw from the P5+1 negotiation. Let it become the P4+1. We're not needed. Let Netanyahu carry his own water.

We negotiate direct threats to us and about direct allies we can trust.

We don’t fund the next war started by political meddlers. We don't participate.

Let Netanyahu start the war. Leave us out. We need a break, to rebuild our reputation from the GOP and Netanyahu. The cost in tax dollars is too high.

UN resolutions? We abstain. Not our concern with countries that abuse our political system. Maybe we sit out a couple of years from the Security Council except when we have a critical direct interest.

We are Israel's ally and friend, not Netanyahu's lapdog. Our interest does not always coincide with Netanyahu's personal ambition. It is Israel’s interest we care about, not his, and not dictated.

Let Netanyahu do it -- without us. Israel is different.

Israelis choose their own leaders. We didn’t and don’t interfere. We won't. Neither should they, in particular on Netanyahu’s level. He did interfere, repeatedly and still is. We owe him nothing.

It's time for a grown up relationship. Netanyahu is not a necessary part.

The arrogance of Netanyahu knows no bound. To assume he is better informed about Iran than United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China stretches our credibility.

While calling the nuclear deal a bad one he was not prepared to offer a workable alternative. He and his American Republican backer are evidently aiming at an impossible total capitulation of Iran stripping the country all the radiating machines even including medical equipment.

I see plenty of parallel between Netanyahu and Greek mythological figure Procrustes who was a rogue smith and bandit from Attica who physically attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit the size of an iron bed.

“We humans, facing limits of knowledge, and things we do not observe, the unseen and the unknown, resolve the tension by squeezing life and the world into crisp commoditized ideas, reductive categories, specific vocabularies, and prepackaged narratives, which, on the occasion, has explosive consequences.” Nassim Taleb saying on a different context in his book The Bed of Procrustes fits Netanyahu well.

Republican and Israeli responses to date sound like fantasy or wishful thinking-or sabotage. Iran tolerated over 1 million casualties to stop Iraq's invasion not so long ago. The deal on offer has risks, but the framework is far more specific and effective than anyone expected.

If this deal does not stop Iran for its duration, what will? Without a deal we know 2 things: 1. The sanctions will be US only because Europe, Russia and China will simply walk away from us, so Iran will have reduced sanctions. and 2. Iran will believe that the only way they can stop US and Israeli attacks on their county is to have a bomb.

Bombing Iran will not stop development of an atomic bomb--and would delay it by less than 1/4 the time this agreement would. Netanyahoo may want the US to invade Iran with the 700,000 or so troops needed to have a chance of subduing the (large) country--but we would need to stay there in force for a couple of decades to have a better chance of of keeping Iran non-nuclear than making this agreement.
Is the Republican Congress willing to sacrifice 20,000 and more US soldiers and trillions of dollars in the off chance that this will keep Iran from a bomb for a couple of years longer than an agreement? Or because they so dependent on Sheldon Adelson for campaign contributions? Or because a war with huge casualties resulting in an Iranian bomb is a small price to pay to embarrass Obama?

Headline should be: "Wholly Disingenuous Says Brennan about Bibi"

But once again our hosts buried the lede.

"Mr. Brennan also dismissed as “wholly disingenuous” Mr. Netanyahu’s claim that the framework accord reached last Thursday in Lausanne, Switzerland, would provide Iran with a “pathway to a bomb.”

The sanction on Iran remind me the Y2K saga, it all proved to be nonsenses. Can anyone explain me if Iran really suffers from the sanctions, how do they finance non stop, the war in Syria, the Hezbollah massive armament, the Yemen overthrow of the government, the takeover and massive troops in Iraq, world wide terror, and the Iran nuclear program??? we are talking about many billions or even trillions of dollars going out of Iran for the above.

Mr. Brennan's most important comments are buried in paragraph 16+, as if we don't want voters to know how critics of the deal are being disingenuous.

Bibi and his GOP pals seem to be betting that if they give the American (and French, and German, and British) people a choice between them and Obama, between aggression and diplomacy, between doing absolutely anything for Bibi's version of Israel and anything else, that we'll all pick him. This is a foolhardy game he's playing. With each utterance, and each embarrassing display of his Congressional tactics here, he's pushing himself farther away from most people's sympathies, and he's taking Israel with him.

Good. That means we can get Israel to relinquish its totally illegal stockpile of nukes by isolating and sanctioning them as well.

Unfortunately the usual political nonsense from USA governmental officials on this topic. No doubt the economic sanctions have had some effect on the ability of the Iranian government and its citizens to live more or less unfettered lives, but the sanctions are largely counterproductive and grossly hypocritical.

One does not need to re-iterate the typically counterproductive blunders that various USA Administrations have committed regarding Iran since the end of WWII in particular: overthrow of Mossadegh, installation and support of the pathetic fool Mohammed Reza Pahlavi for decades, support of the UK's control of Iranian oil for many years, encouragement of Saddam Hussein's Iraq to attack Iran nd on and on.

The USA government has had many opportunities to achieve compatible rapprochement with Iran more or less during that entire period, but chose instead arrogance and belligerence. That has been continued with the economic sanctions and with this moronic straitjacket that the USA government still wishes to impose on a sovereign country which has an ancient culture and that has displayed no desire for war-mongering, while the USA government has done just the opposite.

Of course Republican politicos cannot fall over themselves enough to ingratiate themselves with their wealthy Jewish benefactors who support the existence of Israel ueber alles in the Middle East and oppose the development of any defensive weaponry by countries at risk of attack from Israel.

The CIA's Brennan labels Netanyahu's words as "“wholly disingenuous.” Brennan is apparently too polite to say, "That's a lie." I am not. Netanyahu lies all the time. I recall a whopper Netanyahu foisted on Israelis a day before their recent election. Reversed himself the next day. Nixon would be proud of this guy. And I am every bit as Jewish as thuggish Benjamin Netanyahu.

The centrifuges continue to spin and will increase in number as time passes according to the Supreme Leader.

Reality check:

Currently Iran controls Lebanon ( via Hisbollah), Syria ( Iranian troops on the ground everywhere), much of Iraq ( Iranian troops present) and Yemen ( via its surrogate). It is a major sponsor of terrorism worldwide, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. It tentacles reach into Europe, Africa, Asia, North and South America. There is no evidence at this point that it has any activity on the moon.

Every year since the Shah was overthrown by the fundamentalist Shiite thugs who rule Iran, the regime has only grown more dictatorial, messianic ( the end of times Shiite Islamic version) and greedy. It already has the capabilities to send the atomic bombs which is will soon have, thanks to the ending of sanctions and the cooperation of this and subsequent deals, to any destination in the world.

Israel is at the top of its list. Teheran daily announces its plans for the destruction of the Jewish homeland.

Obama recently said that there is nothing he can do about Iran's plans to annihilate Israel and that to change or request change of such activities are simply too much to request of Iran .

Peace in our times.

Substitute Israel for Czechoslovakia and Obama/ EU for Chamberlain and you will get the picture.

So what? Iran seems to be getting the far better of this "deal", and Obama is the one responsible for that. Why not keep ratcheting up sanctions on Iran, and force them to capitulate to full non-nuclear status? The sanctions were working, and they would have resulted in far better terms for Obama if only he had the guts to stay the course. One has to wonder what his motive was to give the mullahs almost everything they wanted, and so quickly. Sometimes I think he wants to poke a stick in the eye of Republicans at the expense of the safety of the American people.

It seems like an extremely poor idea to publicly provoke Iran

So sad if the economy of a nation which has done as much to terrorize its enemies (Death to America) as Iran, should suffer at all as they build a nuclear bomb.

I don't see how remarks like these help the negotiations along.

This is what Obama said in May 2014 at his West Point commencement address. “Despite frequent warnings from the United States and Israel and others, the Iranian nuclear program steadily advanced for years. At the beginning of my presidency, we built a coalition that imposed sanctions on the Iranian economy, while extending the hand of diplomacy to the Iranian government.” Every White House has a tendency to believe — or at least assert — that time started when the president entered office. But in reality, problems are inherited and also passed on to the next administration. In many cases, a presidential administration will build on work that was done before, even if the new president disagrees rhetorically with a predecessor’s policies. The fact is that nine years ago, on June 1, 2006, the United States and five other world powers announced that they would pursue a dual path of offering incentives to Iran in negotiations and seeking sanctions at the United Nations. This marked a major shift in the George W. Bush administration’s policy toward Iran, as previously the United States had not been part of the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.The talks between Iran and the world powers largely went nowhere, so pressure was applied at the United Nations. Before Bush left office, there were three U.N. Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions that were passed with no negative votes.

So according to Netanyahu, Rouhani is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Then Netanyahu is a wolf in wolf's clothing. His recent rhetoric and actions clearly belie this fact. Let us not be taken in by the whines of a sulky child. We don't to fight proxy wars for Israel. It has proved to be an expensive proposition for us - with our blood, wealth and our moral standing in he world. Enough is enough!

The best results from a tense negotiation always come where both parties can look back and feel that they achieved something. So it is (so far) with the framework.

Let's hope that they will find the courage to push through and make it an agreement worth signing.

And let's not forget, we (US) have quite a few cards to play if they decide to cheat.

Risk/reward is in our favor I believe.

Finally there is emphasis on the fact that three major US allies, UK, France, Germany are in agreement with the US on the Iran talks agreements. One would get the impression that the US had only one ally, Israel, in many of the media and Congressional comments. Don't the views of the European allies have some weight too? (Not to mention Russia and China). Personally It looks like relations between Iran and the US may finally stabilise. After years of deadlock in negotiations this is a great breakthrough. It gives us the opportunity to turn to solving another long historical dispute between Israel and Palestine. I hope that the President now goes along with a French proposed UN sponsored framework for a forward movement on the Israel/Palestine question. Israel's security will not be at stake but the US will finally have been able to give clear voice to it's own policies. For too long narrow domestic political concerns have muted an independent US voice. It has nearly always been the Israel tail wagging the US dog when it comes to any Middle East problems .

The door is opening to normal relations both sides need to cut the rhetoric and playing to the angry and get something done. True talks are give and take and saving face. You don't give a shovel to someone in a hole. Senator Cotton said today a few days of bombing would solve this. Sounds similar to the one Iraq oil will pay for the Iraqi war. Give the Iranians a way out of the hole they have dug a way to save face. The door is open a crack someone needs to put their foot in it and keep pushing. Both sides win and the world does too. Three trillion dollars countless American lives lost in Iraq should temper the drumbeats to the bombsights. At the end of World War II we could have hung the Emperor of Japan and nobody would have shed a tear. Wise men knew better and spared his life. They knew that even the beaten need to see some light at the end of the tunnel. Thousands of GI”s died in Nam while they negotiated the shape of the table in Paris. Let’s at least give it a chance. Twelve years of endless war seems to have taught us little..

The CIA should not be taking a public position on this, regardless if it's a positive step. It is not their achievement, not at all.

The CIA director would be a whole lot more helpful if he commented on its role in the overthrow of Mossedegh (sp?) and how that led to the current situation. Of course, he'll never do that. Were he to talk about lessons the CIA has learned, that would be a whole lot more helpful.

Am I the only one wondering about the usefulness of these public remarks to the negotiations? I thought the CIA was supposed to be more circumspect. But if this were instead a plant by the Administration, who, exactly, is helped by the revelations? I'm struggling to believe that Khouani benefits; from all I've read, he's not exactly secure in his position and has had to tread gingerly as the talks have unfolded.

Obama's GOP critics will conclude that if the sanctions were causing so much harm, then more sanctions will drive an even better deal.

So, again, who gains from Brennan's comments?

One can take the "economy going down" comment different ways depending on one's political bias.

1) we could have brought them to their knees and called for a verifiable end to their program.

OK, but then what?
To their knees might destabilize the already conservative power structure and provide an opening for even harder leaders seeking confrontation with their enemies.
Also, the atomic program could be reconstituted after sanctions went away eventually. With less possibility for any type of reasonable compromise like we see.

2) the sanctions had teeth and we proved we can get them going again. Now was the time to play to Iranian moderates, get a deal, and see if the whole relationship can be brought along.
OK, but that's a lot of presumption. It's a very brutal regime when moderates step up. Just ask those in the June 09 uprising.

So, where to come down?

A chance for peace always gets my vote.
If Netanyahu would moderate, even reach out to Rhohani, the facts on the ground would change radically. Hard-liners would be out in the cold.

He needs to study Sadat's outreach to Israel in the late 70's.
Egypt and Israel were mortal enemies who had spilled each other's blood in numerous wars.

Iran and Israel have never had a direct war and their populations actually engage with each other. Both highly educated peoples and western in their orientation.

Lighten up Netanyahu.
You and your unbending rhetoric just may be the problem at this point.

Seeing as Brennan is the director of the organization that wiretapped the Senate and then lied about it on his watch, should I even wait to assume he's lying/talking through his hat?

If this is true, all the more reason to have walked away from the table and left the Iranians stew in their own juice until they agreed to a "real" agreement (not a meaningless 'framework') with much tougher requirements on their part.

Sounds like more media playing statements to try to sell and sugarcoat a bad deal.

That must be why the Iranians want the sanctions lifted pronto ! Just like Cuba has their own demand FIRST . Nothing like ' negating ' with bullies.

THE main takeaways from this article are:

I. Mr. Brennan also dismissed as “wholly disingenuous” Mr. Netanyahu’s claim that the framework accord reached last Thursday in Lausanne, Switzerland, would provide Iran with a “pathway to a bomb.”

II. Mr. Brennan said that he was “pleasantly surprised” that the Iranians had given up as much as they did. He also backed the Obama administration’s assessment that the accord would greatly extend the amount of time it would take Iran to put together a bomb, either from plutonium or uranium.

III. “When I look at the concessions that they made, going from 19,000 centrifuges to 6,000 centrifuges with 5,000 still operating, nobody thought they would do it,” Mr. Brennan said.

THESE points combined with Facts & Science behind the Deal as elaborated by United States' Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz, should and must extinguish any doubts regarding the "Phenomenal Success" of the P5+1 negotiations with Iran.

The Conservatives in Congress will never give Obama credit for anything. The critisized his engagement with Iran as an apologist tour. However, it is that engagement with the subsequent behind the scene negotiations with other countries that we are even discussing an agreement. By engaging Iran we laid the groundwork for sanctions by telling the world we are not just interested in punishing Iran. Obama then followed this up with tough sanctions that the world signed onto. These sanctions caused significant economic strains which both brought the Iranians to the negotiation table as well as forced them to make significant offers. The fact that many have said we got more than we expected is an indication that the sanctions bite and Iran is desperate for a deal. That is why the Reps. are so desperate to scuttle the deal. It shows smart diplomacy works and bombing (see Iraq) does not work. The neo-cons can't not tolerate success.

To judge the Iranian intent one must know Arabic.

Listen what their media propagandizes in Arabic about America ("The Great Satan"), the daily barrage of antisemitism in kindergartens, mosques, the media, etc., and the militancy of their leaders and in their educational system.

While we make nuclear deals Iran continues to develop their ICBMs.

Why would Iran need ICBMs since Israel is just 1000 miles away?

The U.S. is about 7000 miles away.

They are called "Intercontinental Missiles" because they can be launched at other continents (like the U.S.).

We were worried about ICRM missiles from Cuba about 90 miles away from us.

And they weren't ICBMs.

What is it called aiding Iran—our enemy—in becoming a world nuclear power with ICBMs?

The deal Obama said is "a sure bet" does not cover ICBM development.

Obama is betting on American lives.

Netanyahu said on NBC News’s “Meet the Press,” “I’m not trying to kill any deal; I’m trying to kill a bad deal,” he said

Betting American lives that Iran will not deceive us is a very bad deal.

But Mr. CIA director don't you read the papers....We don't have a deal. At best we have an agreement to agree at some point but the parties don't agree on what that agreement says. Mr. CIA director are you lying again?

Brennan's on the money. It's pretty dangerous out there. However, I would have chosen a better loci for the delivery, rather than this dumping ground for out of work politicians.

Mr. Brennan might be right in his assessment of why Iran came to the bargaining table, but perhaps Iran fears a preemptive strike by Israel after the targeted assassinations of its new leaf physicists.
President Rouhani reminds me of Gorbechev, a man you can do business with. It was interesting to read Mr. Brennan's opinion of Netanyahu.

Very encouraging to see our President and Secretary of State, along with the majority of the Iranian people, are going ahead with resolving the problem of the nuclear situation in Iran without the PM of Israel and the Republicans in the U.S. Senate being allowed to scupper the negotiations. The Iranian establishment have got the memo now it's the turn of GOP to get with the program. Let's hope for all our sakes that this nuclear deal will bear fruit.

If a moderate is able to influence Khamenei and the clerical leadership as the CIA claims, then that is good news for the world. It would also be comforting to believe that economic sanctions are an alternative to armed conflict when playing "hardball."

However, given the CIA's recent track record, I'm not quite willing to bet on their analysis. Could a bigger ingredient in the decision have been that Iran is involved in a regional proxy war with Saudi Arabia and Israel, and could do with one less enemy at the moment? In other words, the deal is a product of current circumstances more than a shift in the amount of influence moderate politicians have in Iran, or the amount of influence economic sanctions carry on non-democratic regimes?

The US may have "gone to school" on Iran's nuclear infrastructure but the semester will be ending once the agreement is executed and billions start pouring in after the sanctions are lifted. A new school can easily be built elsewhere or outsourced with those rials.

There is no expectation that the leopard will change its spots. But it is nice to know that the sanctions are, in fact, working quite well despite what the president is claiming.

I suppose the mythology that sanctions brought Iran to its knees is what Brennan has to say to placate the Republicans, but it is not true.

Brennan has no direct knowledge of Iran. He has no idea that Iran has an extremely robust internal economy. Iranians can make or produce virtually everything they need, with only a small list of high-tech machine tooled equipment needed to maintain airline equipment and some oilfield facilities. Yes, imported goods are expensive and hard to come by. Yes, there is high inflation and high unemployment, but any person going to Iran knows that the society is vibrant, well-educated, talented, free to travel and far from lacking in basic needs. The sanctions put the squeeze on only a small proportion of the population. The drop in oil prices was far more deleterious to Iranian society than the sanctions ever were. The sanctions could remain indefinitely and Iran would not feel pressured to buckle under as Brennan suggests.

The Iranians were simply sick to death of the 40+ years of estrangement. They knew and know today that the lifting of the sanctions is not some kind of desperation lifeline they need to have thrown to them. It is a tremendous opportunity for economic growth and prosperity, not only for them, but for the world. President Rowhani and Minister Zarif help.

So while the United States obsesses over our ability to humiliate Iran and bring it to its knees, the Iranians are looking forward to a progressive future.

While Mr. Obama is usually deeply suspicious of intelligence reporting, his relationship with Mr. Brennan has been an especially tight one since the 2008 campaign.

Maybe the ill effects of Bush and Cheney's misuse and abuse of the information gathered may finally be starting wear off thanks to Obama's prerogative to use it for beneficial purposes rather than personal ones.

For all the money we taxpayers spend funding the acquisition of such information, it's nice to finally begin to see that are investments are not being squandered strictly on funding the indulgences and whims of those who feel themselves deserving and entitled of abusing the public trust.

Iran's leadership is proving more practical than the bluster would have suggested. President Obama is showing that the carrot & stick approach elicits a rational response. As for Netanyahu's description of Rouhani as "a wolf in sheep's clothing, a wolf who thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the international community" - that perfectly captures himself! In rare, unguarded moments of truth, Bibi admitted he will never allow a Palestinian state and that he does not want Arab citizens represented democratically. Israel is also a nuclear power and quick to use military force, making his alleged fears even more specious.

The two statements “a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a wolf who thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the international community”, and “thinks he can have his yellowcake and eat it, too” apply as much to Bibi as anyone else.

Two years of sanctions and negotiations is better than a decade of war. The Obama administration handled this beautifully. Netanyahu and the GOP notwithstanding, a lot of people are very grateful for this agreement and look forward to it being finalized.

To hear the Republicans trying to convince us that President Obama is "Neville Chamberlain" and Netanyahu is "Churchill" is ironic to say the least. If the Iranians followed a plan like Churchill then they would build as many bombs as possible and declare war on the US because the US would be a threat to their Nation; instead, they have chosen diplomacy and so has the US with the exception of the Republicans.