It all reads noble and high minded. Mr. Obama makes the case that if we're wrong America will suffer no harm. But, Mr. Obama, how many of our allies in Israel will die if we're wrong? The short answer? ALL OF THEM.

It's one thing to whisper advice from a covered position; it's something else to test its merit at the point of attack.

Once again, at best Mr. Obama is a neophyte trying to play in the big league. At worst? Well, fill in your own descriptors.

I heard a very interesting point coming from Mark Simone on the radio yesterday. This scenario has already played out in EXACTLY the same way over twenty years ago.

With North Korea.

Bill Clinton made a speech that Obama copied nearly to the word, substituting Iran for North Korea. And what has that nation done? Nothing except develop nuclear weapons with which to demand more concessions, more food aid. And they've been unabashed in surreptitiously attacking South Korea - remember that South Korean military vessel they sunk a few years ago?

One of the things Bush II failed to foresee when he went after Saddam Hussein was that it was Hussein and the ongoing nature of the Iran-Iraq war that had held Iran in check for the past thirty years. Now suddenly without that conflict to preoccupy them, Iran was free to wreak havoc all across the region - which they have done as State sponsors of Hamas, Hezbollah, and several other militant/jihadist groups.

This is a huge mistake. Iran has plenty of oil for energy. Let them use it. Their pursuit of nuclear energy is a political facade put up to thinly veil what they have already seen happen with North Korea. They see how America caved in and the results - none of which were really negative. So they are following suit. And they are even more dangerously ideological than North Korea.

Presidebt Opinocchio's lips are moving.
Again.
Won't we ever learn?
Again.
Again.
Again.
Oh, a liar's precious legacy!
What would that be?
Colossal corruption.

What our dear leader fails to recognize is just how widespread the civil war between Sunni and Shiite beliefs is becoming. Iran is seeking a security guarantee with Russia that would promise that country would come to Iran's defense. At the same time, there is the distinct possibility that Turkey may be drawn into the developing Sunni coalition. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, the U.S. is obligated to come to its defense. The possibility that this increases the likelihood of a direct confrontation between the U.S. and its old Cold War opponent seems to escape him. Iran is using the threat of developing a nuclear weapon as a foil to gain economic power and strengthen its hand in the proxy wars being fought in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen (and extend its influence over events in Africa). The Chinese have been careful not to offer military aid to Iran, but seem eager to join it in economic ventures. Obama is exploring fruitless ventures to avoid violence, when it will inevitably be thrust upon us.

Rand once wrote off the U.N. by saying (paraphrasing) that it was useless to be part of a crime commission where the Mafia had veto power. Any agreement with Iran would be many times worse than that. Why in the world would anyone in their right mind believe that the Mad Mullahs would honor any agreement based not only on their insane beliefs, but their past performance? It is an exercise in futility. A façade with nothing behind it. Something for a legacy that will crumble into dust over time.

I have read some of the interview and eventually went to the last paragraph. I do not know which of these guys is the dumber of the two, freidman for taking the time to talk to 0 or 0 opening his mouth and saying what ever comes out. his main interest is for peace in the region, incredible! there has not been peace in the region since the beginning of time. this guy 0 has lived as long as he has with tunnel vision or blinders. it never occurs to 0 that there is no dealing with arabs that are steeped in their religion, they will just say what ever on a continuing basis regardless of what you say to them in return. 0 is just as dense as his predecessors have been in trying to work some sort of deal with the arabs. I am of the opinion that the government of the usa somehow wants the agitation to continue for what ever reason. as you know they cannot be trusted.

In my view, a cogent, articulate, rather complete case for the proposed agreement being the strategy to pursue our national self-interest. He amply demonstrates understanding of Israel's perspective and fears and addresses them. He is realistic about Iran and its rulers. As a long-time Obama non-supporter, I was impressed by his persistent references to logic and the facts, without politicking and rhetoric. Israel has some 100 nuclear weapons, never admitted and not under the non-proliferation treaty. The United States has both nuclear and conventional weapons sufficient to annihilate all the world's capital cities. Facing Israel's power and that of the United States, Iran has the potential for one nuclear weapon, maybe, in the future. It has disavowed this intent, although Mr. Obama is fully cognizant of its earlier deception. It also has the right under the NPT, which it signed, to develop nuclear technology. The proposed agreement is the way to go, if it can be completed as planned. It should be backed, and Obama clearly, if without chest beating, says this, with the understanding that the United States and Israel stand together ready to respond to any cheating, and any possible nuclear threat, by Iran. Frankly, with the U.S., Israel, and the U.S. partners in the plan all together in holding Iran to any agreement, Iran must feel very, very isolated and vulnerable. Comments on President's Obama's supposed motives are unhelpful; extravagant fantasies about the annihilation of Israel are worse than unhelpful. If you want to protect our allies, then South Korea faces the real existence of real nuclear weapons in North Korea, a vicious totalitarian dictatorship. And yet, the calculation, with which South Korea seems able to live, is that the United States security guarantee is adequate. And South Korea, unlike Israel, has NO nuclear weapons. Posts here show a complete failure to come to terms with the argument with consistent logic and marshaling of the facts.

Consider the majority of comments on this page and so many others I have seen that attack President Obama's character, motives, and intelligence in advancing the "framework agreement" with Iran. One problem with that is that six nations, including the entire U.N. Security Council permanent membership, were negotiating with Iran. And, of course, all six had to agree to the "framework." And if you think that China or Russia, or even France, is a puppet of the United States, you are mistaken.

In today's world, the only nation presenting what Israeli President Netanyahu loves to call "an existential threat" to the United States is Russia. Russia maintains the nuclear arsenal developed during the Cold War to match and over-match that of the United States. Unlike Soviet Russia, however, today's Russia under Vladimir Putin has not declared its commitment to the destruction of world capitalism and the United States (if only we still REPRESENTED "world capitalism," but that's another story). And yet, given its nuclear arsenal, which Mr. Putin in various provocative war games reminds Europe and America is still aimed at us, a U.S. military attack to deter Russia is unthinkably dangerous.

The "framework agreement" between the six world powers and Iran is a powerful move against Russian Premier Putin's ambitions for a "greater Russia." Yes, Russia joined the six world powers in negotiating with Iran; to have refused would have been to exclude Russia from this roll call of great powers. Mr. Putin would not do that.

But the agreement with Iran is a setback for Russia's ambitions under Mr. Putin. First, the intense pressure of the Iran negotiations distracted the attention of the United States from the Russian grab for "influence" in the eastern Ukraine. With Iran out of the way, that immediately becomes a top U.S. and European priority. Second, Russia's economy depends almost entirely upon export of oil and the recent plunge in the oil price has devastated the Russian economy. If the "framework" agreement succeeds, in June, and sanctions on Iran gradually are lifted, Iranian oil will flow into the market, increasing supply and suppressing prices. Exactly the opposite of what Russia needs.

But much more directly, with Iran on the outs with the United States, Russia had an opportunity to extend its influence in the Middle East--not a welcome influence, considering its firm support for the government of Syria. How pressing was this on the Obama administration in reaching an agreement with Iran?

The day after the Iranian nuclear framework was announced, an official Russian publication, quoting the head of Moscow's Center for Analysis of World Trade, wrote that now it was a "perfectly logical development" for Russia to complete its sale of S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran, since the embargo on Iran would be lifted. These missiles, of course, would have given Iran a defense and deterrent against an Israeli, United States, or combined attack to try to disable Iran's nuclear facilities.

This indicates Russia's real assessment of the proposed agreement; it was more than willing to sell Iran missiles to deter an attack on its nuclear facilities. Surely, it is worth noting that Iran chose to reach an agreement with the world powers, not to go the route of relying on Russian missiles. And with the proposed agreement, the purchase of the missiles by Iran, already strapped for cash, becomes highly unlikely.

Russia was playing both sides: participating in the world power negotiations with Iran to affirm its status on the world stage, and also offering Iran missiles and other assistance if it chose to reject the agreement.

The "framework" agreement with Iran not only brings its nuclear development program under international control and scrutiny; it also confronts Putin's Russia with a loss of power: in its Ukraine gambit, in the world oil markets, and in its fishing for increased influence in Iran and the Middle East.

And so, I think, you can see that the pursuit of our national self-interest in the world--although overall it seeks to promote recognition of human rights, advancement of capitalism and free trade, and renunciation of the initiation of force--cannot be derived in its specifics from any reference to general philosophical principles.

At the end of the day the difference between North Korea and Iran is that Iran doesn't care if it exists after destroying Israel.
You and the president fail to see that.

Desperate to save something to remember him by other than the total disaster of every one of his policies and the continued destruction of liberty.

Obama Doctrine, horsepucky.
Just another bullshite propaganda con job.
Its this year's "Yes We Can" .
Obama, we want our trillions back, you can keep the f%^&ing "Change."

I watched pieces of it earlier and concluded its just more of Obama's being the talking TV head to sell us stuff. And this is stuff.