For Immediate Release

May 19th,  2015

The President met today with his National Security Council to discuss the situation in Iraq and our strategy to counter the threat posed by ISIL in Iraq and Syria.  The President was briefed on the latest developments in Iraq and our support to the Iraqi security forces and local tribal fighters responding to the situation in Anbar province.  The President reaffirmed the strong U.S. support for Prime Minister Al-Abadi’s efforts, and welcomed the decision issued earlier today by the Iraqi Council of Ministers to accelerate the training and equipping of local tribes in coobardination with Anbar authorities, expand recruitment into the Iraqi Army, train local police, and develop a consolidated plan to retake Ramadi with all associated forces acting under Iraqi command.  The President reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to the Government of Iraq and the Iraqi people in the fight against ISIL.

Participants in today’s meeting included:

• The Vice President
• John Kerry, Secretary of State (via secure phone)
• Ashton Carter, Secretary of Defense
• Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security
• Denis McDonough, Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff
• Susan Rice, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
• Ambassador Samantha Power, Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations (via secure video teleconference)
• Neil Eggleston, Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President
• James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence
• John Brennan, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
• Lisa Monaco, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
• Avril Haines, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor
• Benjamin Rhodes, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting
• Antony Blinken, Deputy Secretary of State (via secure video teleconference)
• Christine Wormuth, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
• ADM James Winnefeld, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
• John Mulligan, Deputy Director of the National Counterterrorism Center
• GEN Lloyd Austin, Commander, U.S. Central Command (via secure video teleconference)
• Amb. Stuart Jones, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (via secure video teleconference)
• John Allen, Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL
• Brett McGurk, Deputy Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL
• Colin Kahl, Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President
• Suzanne George, Deputy Assistant to the President and Executive Secretary and Chief of Staff of the National Security Council
• Brian Egan, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President
• Rob Malley, Special Assistant to the President and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and Gulf Region

Speaking of welcomed the decision issued earlier today by the Iraqi Council of Ministers to accelerate the training and equipping of local tribes in coobardination with Anbar authorities, expand recruitment into the Iraqi Army, train local police, and develop a consolidated plan to retake Ramadi with all associated forces acting under Iraqi command.

To the north and west, Ramadi is bounded by the Euphrates River, while to the east and south it gradually disappears into suburbs. Ramadi is also the location of the Ramadi Barrage which diverts water from the Euphrates River into Lake Habbaniyah.

U.S. units were largely restricted to a handful of small bases. The headquarters base, in the northern corner of Ramadi, is on the grounds of one of two Saddam-era palaces in the city; known first as Tactical Assembly Area Rifles and later as Camp Blue Diamond, this base was turned over to the Iraqi Army in the winter of 2007. At the other end of the stretch of Highway 10 that runs through Ramadi is another Saddam-era palace used as a Combat Outpost by a unit from the (Florida National Guard). Several smaller buildings along Highway 10 between the two larger bases are routinely occupied by U.S. and Iraqi units, and just outside the city there are a number of other, less dangerous and better equipped camps, where an Army brigade headquarters and its support units were based.

The below map shows where the locations are for Ramadi and Baghdad.

1. Resources:White House, wikipedia, WS Live youtube
2. Ma
3. May 20th, 2015, Catch4all.com, Sandra Englund

The goal: Reaching a long-term diplomatic resolution that verifiably prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

In November 2013, the P5+1 and Iran took an important first step toward that goal with the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), which halted the progress of Iran’s program and rolled back it back in key areas for the first time in nearly a decade. The IAEA has verified that Iran has met all of its obligations under the JPOA.

Today, after many months of principled diplomacy building on the JPOA, we have achieved a framework for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

You can view the key parameters of the JCPOA framework via pdf file.

-------------------------------

When that did not happen, we rallied the world to impose the toughest sanctions in history—sanctions that had a profound impact on the Iranian economy.

Sanctions alone could not stop Iran’s nuclear program. But they did help bring Iran to the negotiating table. Because of our diplomatic efforts, the world stood with us, and we were joined at the negotiating table by the world’s major powers – the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China, as well as the European Union.

Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Program.  Iran work to conclude the JCPOA based on these parameters over the coming months:  

These elements form the foundation upon which the final text of the JCPOA will be written between now and June 30, and reflect the significant progress that has been made in discussions between the P5+1, the European Union, and Iran.

Important implementation details are still subject to negotiation, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

The Team will work to conclude the JCPOA based on these parameters over the coming months.  Iran will have the most reliable and secure situation when Trust and Safe Inspect with regulation working with P5+1 which will keep security peace and rules to apply.  With that, in Returns Peace and better nation further,  even better world and global peace to join together which means The new transparency and inspections mechanisms will closely monitor materials and/or components to prevent diversion to a secret program. Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program P5+1 deal to be completed by June 21st, 2015 with United States, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom and Germany.

Resources:White House, Secretary of State, John Kerry, wikipedia,  WSJ Live, youtube, and   Iran Daily April 2nd, 2015 Sandra Englund

As the deadline for a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran nears, 367 House Members wrote to Presdient Obama to underscore the grave
and urgent issues that have arisen in critical negotiations with Iran.

"367 House Members Send Letter
on Iran Nuclear Negotiations to
President Obama".
U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Chairman Ed Royce.
23 March 2015. (Retrieved 23 March 2015.)

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the Committee’s Ranking Member, along with 365 other House Members, have released a bipartisan letter to President Obama underscoring the “grave and urgent issues that have arisen” relating to the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.  Negotiators face an end of March deadline.

The letter was sent a day after a hearing at which Committee Members pressed senior State Department and Treasury Department officials as to whether the Obama Administration’s ongoing negotiations are blocking or paving Tehran’s path to nuclear weapons.

The letter that the Members sent to the President highlights concerns about the size of Iran’s current uranium enrichment program, its lack of cooperation with international inspectors, and the need for an intrusive inspection regime.  It asserts that verifiable constraints on Iran’s program must last for decades.  The letter also highlights Iran’s destabilizing role in the Middle East and its horrendous human rights record.

In the letter to President Obama, Chairman Royce and his colleagues write: “The United States has had a longstanding interest in preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability.  Over the last twenty years, Congress has passed numerous pieces of legislation imposing sanctions on Iran to prevent that outcome, ultimately forcing Iran into negotiations.   Should an agreement with Iran be reached, permanent sanctions relief from congressionally-mandated sanctions would require new legislation.  In reviewing such an agreement, Congress must be convinced that its terms foreclose any pathway to a bomb, and only then will Congress be able to consider permanent sanctions relief.  Resolving the nuclear crisis with Iran remains of grave importance to our nation’s security.  As the Administration continues to negotiate with Iran, we are prepared to evaluate any agreement to determine its long-term impact on the United States and our allies.  We remain hopeful that a diplomatic solution preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon may yet be reached, and we want to work with you to assure such a result.”

The signed letter is available HERE.

The text of the letter follows:

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As the deadline for a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran nears, we write to you to underscore the grave and urgent issues that have arisen in these negotiations.  While we hope the Administration is able to achieve a lasting and meaningful agreement, we understand that there are several difficult issues that remain unresolved.

No issue will be harder to resolve with the Iranian regime than the status of its uranium enrichment program.  This is the key technology Iran would need to develop a nuclear bomb – technology that Iran has been permitted to continue to research and develop under the interim arrangement.  Many of us wrote to you a year ago, calling for dismantlement of significant portions of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, “such that Iran will not be able to develop, build, or acquire a nuclear weapon.” A final comprehensive nuclear agreement must constrain Iran’s nuclear infrastructure so that Iran has no pathway to a bomb, and that agreement must be long-lasting.  

International inspectors report that Iran has still not revealed its past bomb work, despite its international obligations to do so.  Of the 12 sets of questions that the International Atomic Energy Agency has been seeking, Tehran has answered just part of one.  Just last week, the IAEA reported that it is still concerned about signs of Iran’s military related activities, including designing a nuclear payload for a missile.  Indeed, inspectors had amassed “over a thousand pages” which showed “research, development and testing activities” on technologies needed to develop a nuclear weapon.  Last fall, over 350 Members of the House wrote to the Secretary of State expressing deep concerns about this lack of cooperation.  The potential military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program should be treated as a fundamental test of Tehran’s intention to uphold the final comprehensive agreement.  Unless we have a full understanding of Iran’s past program it will be impossible for the international community to judge Iran’s future breakout time with certainty.

Iran’s record of clandestine activity and intransigence prevents any trust in Iran.  Indeed, a top State Department negotiator has told Congress that, “deception is part of [Iran’s] DNA.”  Even during the period of negotiations, Iran has illicitly procured nuclear technology, which your Administration quickly sanctioned.  Additionally, because of the strict inspections regime under the Joint Plan of Action, Tehran was caught testing a more advanced centrifuge that would have helped produce bomb material more quickly.  Given Iran’s decades of deception, negotiators must obtain maximum commitments to transparency by Iran.  Any inspection and verification regime must allow for short notice access to suspect locations, and verifiable constraints on Iran’s nuclear program must last for decades.   

Finally, while the negotiations with Iran have focused exclusively on Iran’s nuclear program, it is critical that we also consider Iran’s destabilizing role in the region.  Iran is boosting Assad in Syria, supporting sectarian elements in Iraq that undercut hopes for a unified and stable country, and providing assistance to Hezbollah, which continues to threaten Israel.  And last month, an Iranian-backed militia displaced the government in Yemen, a key counterterrorism partner.  Iran’s Supreme Leader has also called for an expansion of his country’s ballistic missile program, yet another dimension of the potential threat posed by Iran.  Iran’s role in fomenting instability in the region—not to mention Iran’s horrendous repression at home—demonstrates the risks of negotiating with a partner we cannot trust.   

The United States has had a longstanding interest in preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability.  Over the last twenty years, Congress has passed numerous pieces of legislation imposing sanctions on Iran to prevent that outcome, ultimately forcing Iran into negotiations.   Should an agreement with Iran be reached, permanent sanctions relief from congressionally-mandated sanctions would require new legislation.  In reviewing such an agreement, Congress must be convinced that its terms foreclose any pathway to a bomb, and only then will Congress be able to consider permanent sanctions relief.

Resolving the nuclear crisis with Iran remains of grave importance to our nation’s security.  As the Administration continues to negotiate with Iran, we are prepared to evaluate any agreement to determine its long-term impact on the United States and our allies.    We remain hopeful that a diplomatic solution preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon may yet be reached, and we want to work with you to assure such a result.

Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

As much as urgency to binding international agreements the nuclear negotiations came into very serious matter to consider.  U.S. Senator Tom Cotton and team have sent a letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran on March 9th, 2015

Congress emphasized to consider Iran’s destabilizing role with deplomatic solution in the region which is very critical while the negotiations with Iran have focused exclusively on Iran’s nuclear program.

On Sunday, March 29th, 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry canceled an event in the U.S. to try wrap up the Iran nuclear negotiations and Secretary Kerry had meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, EU High Representative Federica Mogherini, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, in Lausanne, Switzerland.

World diplomats push for a deal with Iran on easing sanctions in exchange for a nuclear scale-back. Several sticking points remain, with the deadline fast approaching. Kaveh Afrasiabi, a former advisor to Iran's nuclear negotiation team, expects a deal to be reached very soon.

Iran's ballistic missiles have been tied to its nuclear-weapons program. Security Council Resolution 1929 "decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons."  In May–June 2014 a United Nations panel of experts submitted a report pointing to Iran's engagement in ballistic missile activities. The Panel reported that over the last year Iran has conducted a number of ballistic missile test launches, which were a violation of paragraph 9 of the resolution.

The United States and its allies view Iran's ballistic missiles as a subject for the talks on a comprehensive agreement since they regard it as a part of Iran's potential nuclear threat. Members of Iran's negotiating team in Vienna insisted the talks won't focus on this issue.

Here are the list of declared Iran's Nuclear facilities.

Resources:wikipedia, PBS , youtube, and U.S. Department of State: Deplomacy in Action, Yahoo, RT,  President Iran site, iran nuclear energy and House Committe on Foreign Affair, and wikipedia March 30, 2015, Rev. March 31st, 2015 Sandra Englund

Published on Mar 25, 2015

Iran says it will try its utmost in fresh round of talks with P5+1

Iran is preparing for a fresh round of talks with the P5+1 group on a final agreement over its nuclear energy program. The talks will start in Switzerland Thursday when the Iranian and the US delegations will sit face-to-face to discuss the remaining issues. Now Iran says it will do its utmost to bring this round of talks to a successful end.

Iran’s foreign minister says the Iranian team is determined to push for the removal of all sanctions imposed on Tehran as emphasized by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. also says this is what the administration of President Hassan Rouhani has put on the agenda of nuclear talks with P5+1 from the start of its tenure. Iran and the U-S had met at the same venue the Swiss city of Lausanne for several days last week. The two sides said they had made progress on some key issues. The exact topics of discussions are not known, but the removal of sanctions against Iran appears to be a key theme of the talks.

The 7th Iran President Hassan Rouhani appointed a new Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif after his election as chief nuclear negotiator and their first round of talks with the P5+1 was in Geneva on October 15th-16th in 2013. A new Iranian proposal, entitled “An End to an Unnecessary Crisis, Opening a New Horizon”, is presented by  Zarif in the first session. Afterwards, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi leads the negotiations on the Iranian side, as Zarif retreats to his hotel. Iran President Rouhani had emphasized a preference for the level of political representation in the nuclear talks to be elevated, fueling media speculations that Zarif won’t directly participate in actual negotiations until the level of P5+1 representation is elevated.

The prospective agreement is to be achieved based on the context of the Geneva agreement, officially titled the Joint Plan of Action (JPA). The Geneva agreement was an interim deal forged on November 24, 2013,  under which Iran agreed to roll back parts of its nuclear program for relief from some sanctions. The interim agreement went into effect on January 20, 2014.  Later the parties agreed to extend their talks. The first extension deadline was set to 24 November 2014 and, when it expired, the second extension deadline was set to 1 July 2015.  

Discussion for P5+1 meeting was sat Lausanne, Switzerland, on March 17, 2015, for P5+1 Talks With Iran.  The meeting  resumed on March 25th, and will continue on Friday for 6 days intensive meeting which has less than for two weeks in order to reaching agreement

According to PressTV News Videos, dated March 26, 2015:

Iran against two-stage agreement with P5+1.

Nuclear negotiations have been continuing in the Swiss city of Lausanne between the Iranian and US foreign ministers, deputies and experts and with the presence of the EU’s deputy foreign policy chief.

Iran’s leading negotiator Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told us talks are moving in the right direction.

Head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi referred to his talks with US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and said the sides have come close to a common understanding on many items though some issues remain to be dealt with. Reports indicate the main differences concern sanctions’ removal and research and development.

Iran says it’s too soon to say whether by the end of March the sides will be ready to start drafting a comprehensive deal expected to be signed until the end of June.

Sources close to the Iranian team have emphasized that Foreign Minister Zarif is NOT in favor of a two-stage agreement, meaning that as far as Iran is concerned a signed agreement on paper will only be achievable by the end of June.

According to Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Dated June 11, 2014.

Doe Gold reported that Comprehensive Agreement being negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 is the stress they are placing on the role of inspections in assuring the international community that Tehran will not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons.

True, all these analyses are agreed that a comprehensive agreement should make more difficult an Iranian “nuclear breakout,” by which Tehran covertly enriches the requisite quantity of uranium for its first atomic weapon. But rather than cut deeply into Iran’s stocks of enriched uranium or drastically limit the number and speed of its gas centrifuge machines, these proposals also suggest that an unusually robust inspection system can play a significant role in assuring that Tehran will have a difficult time breaking out of any of future agreement.

Underlying these proposals is an appreciation by the authors that a strategy stressing inspections may have a better chance of being accepted by the Iranian leadership, facilitating the achievement of a diplomatic breakthrough. As a May 2014 report of the International Crisis Group noted: “In principle, Iran appears much more willing to accept additional transparency measures than to restrict the evolution of its nuclear program.”1 Joe Cirincione, of the Washington-based Ploughshares Fund, aptly commented this year as well that Iranian officials have long held that “transparency – rather than reduction of capabilities – is the key to assuring the world that its program is peaceful.”2 The Iranians fed these assumptions with generalized statements like the one recently made by President Hassan Rouhani this May: “What we can offer the world is greater transparency.” But he carefully did not enter into specifics about what kind of transparency he had in mind. More detail you can view via pdf by Doe Gold.

Meanwhile the world is concern including Israel about the Irans weapons piling what they have.  See via youtube:

Published on Sep 24, 2014

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani talks to Charlie in an exclusive interview about the growth of the terrorist group in Syria -- and how countries who now oppose it may have fueled its rise. The full interview airs Sept. 24 on PBS.

According to President Hassan Rouhani site, Mrs. Sakineh Peivandi, 90, who had been hospitalized in Tehran's Milad hospital a few days ago passed away at 9:30 am in Tehran’s Milad Hospital on Thursday, She had suffered some diseases due to old age.

Iran Daily dated March 20th, 2015 reported that Sekineh Payvandi, who departed this life after months of illness, had been in hospital for several days before her demise.

Following Payvandi's passing, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz called on Hossein Fereydoun, a brother of and special aide to President Rouhani, at the residence of the Iranian negotiating team in the Swiss city of Lausanne to extend their condolences on the demise of the president's mother.  The two US officials are currently in Lausanne along with Iranian negotiators for talks on Tehran's.

Deepest condolences and prayers for Iran President Rouhani and his family for passing away his mother.

Resources:wikipedia, WSJ Live, CNN, PBS PressTV  Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs , youtube, and U.S. Secretary of State, Yahoo,  President Iran site, iran nuclear energy and  Iran Daily March 26, 2015 Sandra Englund

He was visiting the United States when Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 and, being Jewish, did not go back to Germany, where he had been a professor at the Berlin Academy of Sciences. He settled in the U.S., becoming an American citizen in 1940.  

Einstein published more than 300 scientific papers along with over 150 non-scientific works. On 5 December 2014, universities and archives announced the release of Einstein's papers, comprising more than 30,000 unique documents.   Einstein's intellectual achievements and originality have made the word "Einstein" synonymous with genius.

Albert Einstein invented and manuscripted which expect that the element uranium and it is clearly written a letter to United State America 32nd President of the United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in August 2nd 1939.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt who is as an active military leader, Roosevelt implemented an overall war strategy on two fronts that ended in the defeat of the Axis Powers and the development of the world's first nuclear bomb (commonly called the atom bomb at the time).

With that, the legacy of his history imbaded the world peace conncetion which connects with World War II loomed after 1938, with the Japanese invasion of China and the aggression of Nazi Germany, Roosevelt gave strong diplomatic and financial support to China and Great Britain, while remaining officially neutral.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's goal was to make America the "Arsenal of Democracy," which would supply munitions to the Allies. In March 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt, with Congressional approval, provided Lend-Lease aid to wartime allies Britain and China. Assisted by his top aide Harry Hopkins, he worked closely with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in leading the Allies against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan in World War II. With very strong national support, he made war on Japan and Germany after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, calling it a "date which will live in infamy". Even among the WWII mist, Korea also officially became an integral part of Japan. Japanese rule ended in 1945.  Although In 1965 these treaties were ultimately declared "already null and void" by the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea.  Without these legacy of giant workmanship,  in order to defeat impossible desasterous of human wars, there could have not been as peace now where like Korea even many other countries.  

However, so much for the inventer of Uranium how it began, Uranium is a chemical element with symbol U and atomic number 92. It is a silvery-white metal in the actinide series of the periodic table. A uranium atom has 92 protons and 92 electrons and there are many diffrent kinds of numbers involved.

Two major types of atomic bombs were developed by the United States during World War II: a uranium-based device (codenamed "Little Boy") whose fissile material was highly enriched uranium, and a plutonium-based device (see Trinity test and "Fat Man") whose plutonium was derived from uranium-238. The uranium-based Little Boy device became the first nuclear weapon used in war when it was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945.

Exploding with a yield equivalent to 12,500 tonnes of TNT, the blast and thermal wave of the bomb destroyed nearly 50,000 buildings and killed approximately 75,000 people (see Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).   Initially it was believed that uranium was relatively rare, and that nuclear proliferation could be avoided by simply buying up all known uranium stocks, but within a decade large deposits of it were discovered in many places around the world.

In result of these, it is very important Nuclear proliferation which is the spread of nuclear weapons, fissionable material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information to nations not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or NPT. Leading experts on nuclear proliferation, such as Etel Solingen of the University of California, Irvine, suggest that states' decisions to build nuclear weapons is largely determined by the interests of their governing domestic coalitions.  

Comprehensive P5+1 with Iran:
U.S. and Closest Allies and Partners' Test is Safer and More Secure

I want to emphasize: In my conversations with Foreign Minister Zarif, and indeed over the last 16 months since the Joint Plan of Action took effect, we have made genuine progress. We have all kept the commitments that we made in the Joint Plan, and we have all lived up to our obligations. We have worked long and hard to achieve a comprehensive agreement that resolves international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. The stakes are high and the issues are complicated, highly technical, and all interrelated.

Once again, let me also be clear we don’t want just any deal. If we had, we could have announced something a long time ago. And clearly, since the Joint Plan of Action was agreed, we are not rushing. This has been a two and a half year or more process. But we recognize that fundamental decisions have to be made now, and they don’t get any easier as time goes by. It is time to make hard decisions. We want the right deal that would make the world, including the United States and our closest allies and partners, safer and more secure, and that is our test. President Obama has been clear that the best way to achieve that security, that safety, is through a comprehensive and durable agreement that all parties are committed to upholding, and whose implementation is not based on trust, but it is based on intensive verification, on the ability to know and understand what is happening.

Former Israeli UN Ambassador Dore Gold claimed that the comprehensive agreement being negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 focused on increased transparency instead of a reduction in nuclear capability.   Former U.S. State Department official and advisor on Iran's nuclear program Robert Einhorn said such an agreement would need to both increase transparency and lengthen Iran's timeline for breakout.

According to Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs dated June 11, 2014:

http://jcpa.org/article/inspections-nuclear-agreement/

 Iran Eyes a Nuclear Breakout:

The concern of the Western powers with nuclear breakout is not exaggerated. Iran’s closest security partner, North Korea, was a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As a result, international safeguards were put in place in its Yongbyon reactor to prevent North Korea from reprocessing the reactor’s spent fuel rods for the production of weapons-grade plutonium. In December 2002, the North Koreans removed the seals from the Yongbyon reactor’s spent fuel rods, expelled international inspectors, and announced that they were withdrawing from the NPT. Four years later in 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test. Two more North Korean nuclear tests followed in 2009 and 2013. Iran observed how North Korea successfully broke out of its international commitments and established a nuclear fait accompli. If North Korea could get away with it, why couldn’t Iran?

Iran has strong motivation to follow a similar course. It must always be remembered that Iran is not a status quo power. Its constitution calls for the export of the Islamic Revolution. In 1991, its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was quoted in the Iranian daily Ressalat asking whether Iran seeks hefez (preservation) or bast (expansion), and he answered that it seeks the latter. It views itself increasingly as a hegemonial force in the Middle East. Iran has actively intervened in insurgencies and supplied weapons across the region: in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan, the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. Its forces are on the ground and engaged in fighting in the Syrian civil war. Advanced Iranian weapons are provided to the Syrian army. Nuclear weapons would significantly bolster its regional standing in the Middle East and serve its aspirations to become a great power.

Inspections and Nuclear Breakout:

At the present stage, U.S. officials are focusing on a fissile material breakout using enriched uranium. Secretary of State John Kerry revealed to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in early April 2014 that today Iran can produce enough fissile material for its first atomic bomb in two months. According to Kerry, this “breakout” window did not mean that Iran would have a warhead: “it’s just having one bomb’s worth of material” but without being able to put it into a delivery system. In response to a question about the goal of his nuclear negotiators, Kerry mentioned a breakout window of six to twelve months, without committing himself to that timeline - See more at: http://jcpa.org/article/inspections-nuclear-agreement/

The writer, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN, is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and served as an external advisor to the office of the Prime Minister of Israel. He is the author of the best-selling books: The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City (Regnery, 2007), and The Rise of Nuclear Iran: How Tehran Defies the West (Regnery, 2009).

1. Resources:United Nation, wikipedia, WSJ Live, IAEA. CNN, PressTV  Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs , youtube, and U.S. Secretary of State
   March 21st, 2015 Rev. March 22nd, 2015, Rev. March 26th, 2015
2. Sandra Englund

Transcription

Speaker of the House John Boehner,

President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch,

Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell,

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,

And House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy,

I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it's good to see you back on your feet. I guess it's true what they say, you can't keep a good man down.

My friends, I'm deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress. I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.

I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade. I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel. The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics. Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of  America's people and of America's presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.

We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel. Now, some of that is widely known. Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.

Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well-known. I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment. Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists. In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.

And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister. But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.

And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome. Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.

Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you've done for Israel.

My friends, I've come here today because, as Prime Minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

We're an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we'll read the Book of Esther. We'll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated – he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn't exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.

But Iran's regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran's regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime. The people of Iran are very talented people. They're heirs to one of the world's great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots – religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime's founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to "export the revolution throughout the world."

I'm standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America's founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Iran's goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Backed by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Backed by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world's oil supply. Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That's just last week, while they're having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran's attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran's aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations. We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror.

Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!  Rouhani's government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I'd like to see someone ask him a question about that.

Iran's regime is as radical as ever, its cries of "Death to America," that same America that it calls the "Great Satan," as loud as ever. Now, this shouldn't be surprising, because the ideology of Iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that's why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

Don't be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn't turn Iran into a friend of America. Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

In this deadly game of thrones, there's no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don't share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone. So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember – I'll say it one more time – the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can't let that happen.

But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it. Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short breakout time to the bomb. Breakout time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

Because Iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran's breakout time would be very short – about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel's.

And if Iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that breakout time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.

True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran's nuclear program and Iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here's the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don't stop them.

Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn't stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.

Now, we're warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It's done that on at least three separate occasions – 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras. Now, I know this is not going to come as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught – caught twice, not once, twice – operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn't even know existed.

Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don't know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, "If there's no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn't have one." Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that's why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade. Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it's the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It's a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many, many nuclear bombs.

Iran's Supreme Leader says that openly. He says Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount – 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.

Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

And by the way, if Iran's intercontinental ballistic missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reaching corners of the Earth, including to every part of the United States. So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That's why this deal is so bad. It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.

So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?

Well, I disagree. I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would only whet Iran's appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?

This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel's neighbors, Iran's neighbors, know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb. And many of these neighbors say they'll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won't change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won't be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we'll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I've come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world. Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires. If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.

My friends, what about the argument that there's no alternative to this deal, that Iran's nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?

Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn't get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can't drive. A pilot without a plane can't fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can't make nuclear weapons.

Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.

Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table – and this often happens in a Persian bazaar – call their bluff. They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.

And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more. My friends, for over a year, we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it.

Now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal: a better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short breakout time; a better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in place until Iran's aggression ends; a better deal that won't give Iran an easy path to the bomb; a better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country has a greater stake – no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen,

History has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war. The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don't have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace we all desire.

My friends, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel. Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, "Never Again." And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.

But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.

This is why as Prime Minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand. But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel. I know that you stand with Israel. You stand with Israel because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history's horrors.

Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land. And before the people of Israel entered the Land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, "Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them."

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.

May God bless the State of Israel and may God bless the United States of America. Thank you.  You're wonderful.  Thank you, America.

According to the The White House Office of the Press Secretary dated January 20,

2015,  during the Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address |January 20, 2015, U.S. Capitol Washington, D.C. at 9:10 P.M. EST

President Obama emphasized about the Iran Nuclear to reduce the stockpile of nuclear material from Iran with diplomacy which have been halted proceeding to halt with respectfully.

PART OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENTS ABOUT  IRANS NUCLEAR ISSUE:

Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.  Between now and this spring, we have a chance to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that prevents a nuclear-armed Iran,secures America and our allies -- including Israel, while avoiding yet another Middle East conflict.  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 fails -- alienating America from its allies; making it harder to maintain sanctions; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again.  It doesn’t make sense.  And that's why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress.  (Applause.)  The American people expect us only to go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom.

New York Times reported that The president discussed the continuing negotiations to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran during his State of the Union address:  see below provided part of State of Union for 2015 by President Obamaon January 20th, 2015 via Youtube.

March 02, 2015  The White House Office of the Press Secretary For ImmediateRelease reported that Delivery at AIPAC Annual Meeting by National SecurityAdvisor Susan E. Rice which have described that The National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice remarks said that we must weigh the different options before us and choose the best one.  Sound bites won’t stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  Strong diplomacy – backed by pressure – can.  And, if diplomacy fails, let’s make it clear to the world that it is Iran’s responsibility.

She stresses that One final word on Iran: even if we succeed in neutralizing the nuclear threat from Iran, we will still face other threats—Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, its gross violations of human rights, its efforts to destabilize neighboring states, its support for Assad and Hamas and Hezbollah, its intolerable threats against Israel.  Our sanctions against Iran on these issues will remain in place.  We will continue to counter Iran and the full range of threats it poses.  Tehran must understand—the United States will never, ever waver in the defense of our security or the security of our allies and partners, including Israel. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice emphasized that The United States will always stand with our Israeli friends and allies.  Speaking on the nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, National Security Adviser Susan Rice said "a bad deal is worse than no deal."  

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu also mentioned a few times about "a bad deal" of Iran which have been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it.

Now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal: a better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short breakout time; a better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in place until Iran's aggression ends; a better deal that won't give Iran an easy path to the bomb; a better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country has a greater stake – no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

History has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.

However, PM Netanyahu also mentioned there is much better deal which the second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclear zed Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity

Bottomline terrors has to be prevent for around the world which we do not want another 9.11 incident or bigger ones.

9.11 is the fraction of what the Nuclear terrorism denotes the detonation of a yield-producing nuclear bomb containing fissile material by terrorists.  Some definitions of nuclear terrorism include the sabotage of a nuclear facility and/or the detonation of a radiological device, colloquially termed a dirty bomb, but consensus is lacking. In legal terms, nuclear terrorism is an offense committed if a person unlawfully and intentionally “uses in any way radioactive material … with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or with the intent to cause substantial damage to property or to the environment; or with the intent to compel a natural or legal person, an international organization or a State to do or refrain from doing an act”, according to the 2005 United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

The possibility of terrorist organizations using nuclear weapons (especially very small ones, such as suitcase nukes) has been a threat in American rhetoric and culture. It is considered plausible that terrorists could acquire a nuclear weapon. However despite thefts and trafficking of small amounts of fissile material, all low-concern and less than Category III Special nuclear material (SNM), there is no credible evidence that any terrorist group has succeeded in obtaining Category I SNM, the necessary multi-kilogram critical mass amounts of weapons grade plutonium required to make a nuclear weapon.

Nuclear power can be useful which is the use of nuclear reactors to release nuclear energy, and thereby generate electricity. The term includes nuclear fission, nuclear decay and nuclear fusion. Presently, the nuclear fission of elements in the actinide series of the periodic table produce the vast majority of nuclear energy in the direct service of humankind, with nuclear decay processes, primarily in the form of geothermal energy, and radioisotope thermoelectric generators, in niche uses making up the rest. 

However, it can be disaster when it's nature or attack, disaster comes, it could lead to widespread radioactive contamination even the neighbor countries further more worldwide causes uncontrollable environmental issues
to think about....

Resources:White House, Israel Prime Minister site,  Wikipedia, Yahoo,  Youtube, AP, New York Times, WallStreet Journal Live, Fox news and CNN March 2nd, 2015, Rev. March 3rd, 2015, Rev.March 4th, 2015

ISIL beheading incidents

Resources:Wikipedia, Yahoo,  Youtube, WSJ Live, USA Today and CNN
February 15th, 2015, Rev Feb. 16th, and Rev. Feb 25th, 2015

Letter from the President -- Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces in connection with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

For Immediate Release

February 10, 2015

P.M. EDT

It is with profound sadness that we have learned of the death of Kayla Jean Mueller.  On behalf of the American people, Michelle and I convey our deepest condolences to Kayla’s family – her parents, Marsha and Carl, and her brother Eric and his family – and all of those who loved Kayla dearly.  At this time of unimaginable suffering, the country shares in their grief.

Kayla dedicated her life to helping others in need at home and around the world.  In Prescott, Arizona, she volunteered at a women’s shelter and worked at an HIV/AIDS clinic.  She worked with humanitarian organizations in India, Israel, and the Palestinian territories, compelled by her desire to serve others.  Eventually, her path took her to Turkey, where she helped provide comfort and support to Syrian refugees forced to flee their homes during the war.  Kayla’s compassion and dedication to assisting those in need shows us that even amongst unconscionable evil, the essential decency of humanity can live on.

Kayla represents what is best about America, and expressed her deep pride in the freedoms that we Americans enjoy, and that so many others strive for around the world.  She said:  “Here we are.  Free to speak out without fear of being killed, blessed to be protected by the same law we are subjected to, free to see our families as we please, free to cross borders and free to disagree.  We have many people to thank for these freedoms and I see it as an injustice not to use them to their fullest.”

Kayla Mueller used these freedoms she so cherished to improve the lives of others.  In how she lived her life, she epitomized all that is good in our world.  She has been taken from us, but her legacy endures, inspiring all those who fight, each in their own way, for what is just and what is decent.  No matter how long it takes, the United States will find and bring to justice the terrorists who are responsible for Kayla’s captivity and death.

ISIL is a hateful and abhorrent terrorist group whose actions stand in stark contrast to the spirit of people like Kayla.  On this day, we take comfort in the fact that the future belongs not to those who destroy, but rather to the irrepressible force of human goodness that Kayla Mueller shall forever represent.

On February 10th, 2015, The White House confirmed the 26-year-old American aid worker, who was kidnapped in August 2013 in Syria, is dead.

"Kayla represents what is best about America." - President Obama, Feb. 10, 2015

Kayla Mueller worked with troubled youths.  She volunteered at a women's shelter and at an HIV/AIDS clinic. She provided support to Syrian refugees. She worked with AmeriCorps and Big Brothers Big Sisters. Kayla dedicated her life to helping people.

America agreed. Her family kept her captivity a secret for 18 months, until the Islamic State claimed Friday that she was killed in a Jordanian airstrike, but U.S. officials say there's no evidence that's how she died. We do know Kayla wrote her family a heart-breaking letter while in captivity.  Here is her letter to her family:

Since August, the Islamic State has released several videos showing gruesome killings and threatening those held hostage. Here's a look at those being held or killed.

Kayla Jean Mueller was born in August 14, 1988 and got killed by ISIS CRISIS in February 6, 2015 who was an American human rights activist and humanitarian aid worker from Prescott, Arizona, taken captive in August 2013 in Aleppo, Syria, while leaving a Doctors Without Borders hospital.

Media had long reported that a 26-year-old American aid worker was being held by the Islamic State, without naming her at her family's request.

Resources:White House, Wikipedia, Yahoo,  Youtube, WSJ Live, USA Today and AP
February 11th, 2015

Resources:White House, Wikipedia, Yahoo,  Youtube, and DOD, CIA, CNN, FoxNews, ABC News, WSJ Live, Raqqa, Islam State, and AP, and BBC.

February 7th, 2015

Resources:White House, Wikipedia, Yahoo,  Youtube, and DOD

September 11th,  2014.

4:09 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I want to say a few words on a number of topics and take a few questions before the long Labor Day weekend. 

First, beginning with the number one thing most Americans care about -- the economy.  This morning, we found out that our economy actually grew at a stronger clip in the 2nd quarter than we originally thought.  Companies are investing.  Consumers are spending.  Over the past four and a half years, our businesses have now created nearly 10 million new jobs.  So there are reasons to feel good about the direction we’re headed. 

But as everybody knows, there’s a lot more that we should be doing to make sure that all Americans benefit from the progress that we’ve made.  And I’m going to be pushing Congress hard on this when they return next week.

Second, in Iraq, our dedicated pilots and crews continue to carry out the targeted strikes that I authorized to protect Americans there and to address the humanitarian situation on the ground. 

As Commander-in-Chief, I will always do what is necessary to protect the American people and defend against evolving threats to our homeland.  Because of our strikes, the terrorists of ISIL are losing arms and equipment.  In some areas, Iraqi government and Kurdish forces have begun to push them back. 

And we continue to be proud and grateful to our extraordinary personnel serving in this mission.

Now, ISIL poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and to people throughout the region.  And that’s why our military action in Iraq has to be part of a broader, comprehensive strategy to protect our people and to support our partners who are taking the fight to ISIL.  And that starts with Iraq’s leaders building on the progress that they’ve made so far and forming an inclusive government that will unite their country and strengthen their security forces to confront ISIL.

Any successful strategy, though, also needs strong regional partners.  I’m encouraged so far that countries in the region -- countries that don’t always agree on many things -- increasingly recognize the primacy of the threat that ISIL poses to all of them.  And I’ve asked Secretary Kerry to travel to the region to continue to build the coalition that’s needed to meet this threat.  As I’ve said, rooting out a cancer like ISIL will not be quick or easy, but I’m confident that we can -- and we will -- working closely with our allies and our partners. 

For our part, I’ve directed Secretary Hagel and our Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare a range of options.  I’ll be meeting with my National Security Council again this evening as we continue to develop that strategy.  And I’ve been consulting with members of Congress and I’ll continue to do so in the days ahead.

Finally, I just spoke with Chancellor Merkel of Germany on the situation in Ukraine.  We agree -- if there was ever any doubt -- that Russia is responsible for the violence in eastern Ukraine.  The violence is encouraged by Russia.  The separatists are trained by Russia.  They are armed by Russia.  They are funded by Russia.  Russia has deliberately and repeatedly violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.  And the new images of Russian forces inside Ukraine make that plain for the world to see.  This comes as Ukrainian forces are making progress against the separatists.

As a result of the actions Russia has already taken, and the major sanctions we’ve imposed with our European and international partners, Russia is already more isolated than at any time since the end of the Cold War.  Capital is fleeing.  Investors are increasingly staying out.  Its economy is in decline.  And this ongoing Russian incursion into Ukraine will only bring more costs and consequences for Russia. 

Next week, I’ll be in Europe to coordinate with our closest allies and partners.  In Estonia, I will reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the defense of our NATO allies. 

At the NATO Summit in the United Kingdom, we’ll focus on the additional steps we can take to ensure the Alliance remains prepared for any challenge.  Our meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission will be another opportunity for our alliance to continue our partnership with Ukraine.  And I look forward to reaffirming the unwavering commitment of the United States to Ukraine and its people when I welcome President Poroshenko to the White House next month.  

So with that, I’m going to take a few questions.  And I’m going to start with somebody who I guess is now a big cheese -- he’s moved on.  But I understand this is going to be his last chance to ask me a question in the press room.  So I want to congratulate Chuck Todd and give him first dibs.

Q    I’m glad you said “in the press room.”  Let me start with Syria.  The decision that you have to make between -- first of all, is it a “if” or “when” situation about going after ISIL in Syria?  Can you defeat ISIL or ISIS without going after them in Syria?  And then how do you prioritize?  You have said that Assad has lost legitimacy to lead.  Defeating ISIS could help Assad keep power.  Talk about how you prioritize those two pieces of your foreign policy.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I want to make sure everybody is clear on what we’re doing now, because it is limited.  Our focus right now is to protect American personnel on the ground in Iraq; to protect our embassy, to protect our consulates, to make sure that critical infrastructure that could adversely affect our personnel is protected. 

Where we see an opportunity that allows us with very modest risk to help the humanitarian situation there as we did in Sinjar Mountain, we will take those opportunities after having consulted with Congress.  But our core priority right now is just to make sure that our folks are safe and to do an effective assessment of Iraqi and Kurdish capabilities.  

As I said I think in the last press conference, in order for us to be successful, we’ve got to have an Iraqi government that is unified and inclusive.  So we are continuing to push them to get that job done.  As soon as we have an Iraqi government in place, the likelihood of the Iraqi security forces being more effective in taking the fight to ISIL significantly increases.  And the options that I’m asking for from the Joint Chiefs focuses primarily on making sure that ISIL is not overrunning Iraq. 

What is true, though, is that the violence that’s been taking place in Syria has obviously given ISIL a safe haven there in ungoverned spaces.  And in order for us to degrade ISIL over the long term, we’re going to have to build a regional strategy.  Now, we’re not going to do that alone.  We’re going to have to do that with other partners, and particularly Sunni partners, because part of the goal here is to make sure that Sunnis both in Syria and in Iraq feel as if they’ve got an investment in a government that actually functions, a government that can protect them, a government that makes sure that their families are safe from the barbaric acts that we’ve seen in ISIL.  And right now, those structures are not in place.  

And that’s why the issue with respect to Syria is not simply a military issue, it’s also a political issue.  It’s also an issue that involves all the Sunni states in the region and Sunni leadership recognizing that this cancer that has developed is one that they have to be just as invested in defeating as we are.  

And so to cut to the chase in terms of what may be your specific concerns, Chuck, my priority at this point is to make sure that the gains that ISIL made in Iraq are rolled back, and that Iraq has the opportunity to govern itself effectively and secure itself.  

But when we look at a broader strategy that is consistent with what I said at West Point, that’s consistent with what I said at the National Defense College, clearly ISIL has come to represent the very worst elements in the region that we have to deal with collectively.  And that’s going to be a long-term project.  It’s going to require us to stabilize Syria in some fashion, and stabilizing Syria in some fashion means that we’ve got to get moderate Sunnis who are able to govern and offer a real alternative and competition to what ISIL has been doing in some of these spaces. 

 Now, the last point with respect to Assad, it’s not just my opinion -- I think it would be international opinion -- that Assad has lost legitimacy in terms of dropping barrel bombs on innocent families and killing tens of thousands of people.  And right now, what we’re seeing is the areas that ISIL is occupying are not controlled by Assad anyway.  And, frankly, Assad doesn’t seem to have the capability or reach to get into those areas.  So I don’t think this is a situation where we have to choose between Assad or the kinds of people who carry on the incredible violence that we’ve been seeing there.  We will continue to support a moderate opposition inside of Syria, in part because we have to give people inside of Syria a choice other than ISIL or Assad.  

And I don’t see any scenario in which Assad somehow is able to bring peace and stability to a region that is majority Sunni and has not so far shown any willingness to share power with them or in any kind of significant way deal with the longstanding grievances that they have there.  

Q    Do you need Congress’s approval to go into Syria?

THE PRESIDENT:  I have consulted with Congress throughout this process.  I am confident that as Commander-in-Chief I have the authorities to engage in the acts that we are conducting currently.  As our strategy develops, we will continue to consult with Congress.  And I do think that it will be important for Congress to weigh in, or that our consultations with Congress continue to develop so that the American people are part of the debate. 

But I don’t want to put the cart before the horse.  We don’t have a strategy yet.  I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are.  And I think that’s not just my assessment, but the assessment of our military as well.  We need to make sure that we’ve got clear plans, that we’re developing them.  At that point, I will consult with Congress and make sure that their voices are heard.  But there’s no point in me asking for action on the part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done. 

Colleen McCain Nelson.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Do you consider today’s escalation in Ukraine an invasion?  And when you talk about additional costs to Russia, are you ready at this point to impose broader economic sanctions?  Or are you considering other responses that go beyond sanctions?

THE PRESIDENT:  I consider the actions that we’ve seen in the last week a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now.  As I said in my opening statement, there is no doubt that this is not a homegrown, indigenous uprising in eastern Ukraine.  The separatists are backed, trained, armed, financed by Russia.  Throughout this process, we’ve seen deep Russian involvement in everything that they’ve done.  

I think in part because of the progress that you had seen by the Ukrainians around Donetsk and Luhansk, Russia determined that it had to be a little more overt in what it had already been doing.  But it’s not really a shift. 

What we have seen, though, is that President Putin and Russia have repeatedly passed by potential off-ramps to resolve this diplomatically.  And so in our consultations with our European allies and partners, my expectation is, is that we will take additional steps primarily because we have not seen any meaningful action on the part of Russia to actually try to resolve this in diplomatic fashion. 

And I think that the sanctions that we’ve already applied have been effective.  Our intelligence shows that the Russians know they’ve been effective, even though it may not appear on Russian television.  And I think there are ways for us to deepen or expand the scope of some of that work.  

But ultimately, I think what’s important to recognize is the degree to which Russian decision-making is isolating Russia.  They're doing this to themselves.  And what I’ve been encouraged by is the degree to which our European partners recognize even though they are bearing a cost in implementing these sanctions, they understand that a broader principle is at stake.  And so I look forward to the consultations that we’ll have when I see them next week.  

Zeke Miller. 

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Last year, you said that you believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress.  In response to Chuck’s question you said you don’t have a strategy yet, but you’ll reconsider that going forward.  But why didn’t you go to Congress before this current round of strikes in Iraq?  Do you not believe that that’s the case anymore, what you said last year?  And throughout your career you’ve also said that -- you raised concerns with the expansion of powers of the executive.  Are you concerned that your recent actions, unilaterally, had maybe -- have cut against that?

THE PRESIDENT:  No.  And here’s why:  It is not just part of my responsibility, but it is a sacred duty for me as Commander-in-Chief to protect the American people.  And that requires me to act fast, based on information I receive, if an embassy of ours or a consulate of ours is being threatened.  The decisions I made were based on very concrete assessments about the possibility that Erbil might be overrun in the Kurdish region and that our consulate could be in danger.  And I can’t afford to wait in order to make sure that those folks are protected.

But throughout this process, we’ve consulted closely with Congress, and the feedback I’ve gotten from Congress is, is that we’re doing the right thing.  Now, as we go forward -- as I’ve described to Chuck -- and look at a broader regional strategy with an international coalition and partners to systematically degrade ISIL’s capacity to engage in the terrible violence and disruptions that they’ve been engaging in not just in Syria, not just in Iraq, but potentially elsewhere if we don’t nip this at the bud, then those consultations with Congress for something that is longer term I think become more relevant.

And it is my intention that Congress has to have some buy-in as representatives of the American people.  And, by the way, the American people need to hear what that strategy is.  But as I said to Chuck, I don’t want to put the cart before the horse.  And in some of the media reports the suggestion seems to have been that we’re about to go full scale on an elaborate strategy for defeating ISIL, and the suggestion, I guess, has been that we’ll start moving forward imminently and somehow Congress -- still out of town -- is going to be left in the dark.  That’s not what’s going to happen.

We are going to continue to focus on protecting the American people.  We’re going to continue, where we can, to engage in the sort of humanitarian acts that saved so many folks who were trapped on a mountain.  We are going to work politically and diplomatically with folks in the region.  And we’re going to cobble together the kind of coalition that we need for a long-term strategy as soon as we are able to fit together the military, political and economic components of that strategy.  There will be a military aspect to that, and it’s going to be important for Congress to know what that is, in part because it may cost some money.

I’ll just take a couple more.  Yes.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Do you regret not moving on ISIS earlier?  There are some reports indicating that most of the weapons, the U.S. weapons that they have, they got it or they acquired it after the fall of Mosul.  And also, the Iraqi President said today that the Iraqi forces are in no position to stand up to ISIS.  What makes you think that forming a new government will change the situation?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, once ISIL got into Mosul that posed a big problem, because there’s no doubt that they were able to capture some weapons and resources that they then used to finance additional operations.

 And at that stage, we immediately contacted the Iraqi government.  Keep in mind we had been in communications with the Iraqi government for more than a year indicating that we saw significant problems in the Sunni areas.  Prime Minister Maliki was not as responsive perhaps as we would have liked to some of the underlying political grievances that existed at the time.

There is no doubt that in order for Iraq security forces to be successful, they're going to need help.  They're going to need help from us.  They're going to need help from our international partners.  They're going to need additional training.  They're going to need additional equipment.  And we are going to be prepared to offer that support. 

There may be a role for an international coalition providing additional air support for their operations.  But the reason it’s so important that an Iraqi government be in place is this is not simply a military problem.  The problem we have had consistently is a Sunni population that feels alienated from Baghdad and does not feel invested in what’s happening, and does not feel as if anybody is looking out for them.

If we can get a government in place that provides Sunnis some hope that a national government serves their interest, if they can regain some confidence and trust that it will follow through on commitments that were made way back in 2006 and 2007 and 2008 and earlier about how you arrive at, for example, de-Baathification laws and give people opportunities so they're not locked out of government positions -- if those things are followed through on, and we are able to combine it with a sound military strategy, then I think we can be successful.  If we can't, then the idea that the United States or any outside power would perpetually defeat ISIS I think is unrealistic. 

As I’ve said before -- I think I said in the previous press conference -- our military is the best in the world.  We can route ISIS on the ground and keep a lid on things temporarily.  But then as soon as we leave, the same problems come back again.  So we’ve got to make sure that Iraqis understand in the end they're going to be responsible for their own security.  And part of that is going to be the capacity for them to make compromises.

It also means that states in the region stop being ambivalent about these extremist groups.  The truth is that we’ve had state actors who at times have thought that the way to advance their interests is, well, financing some of these groups as proxies is not such a bad strategy.  And part of our message to the entire region is this should be a wake-up call to Sunni,to Shia -- to everybody -- that a group like ISIS is beyond the pale; that they have no vision or ideology beyond violence and chaos and the slaughter of innocent people.  And as a consequence, we’ve got to all join together -- even if we have differences on a range of political issues -- to make sure that they’re rooted out.

Last question.

Q    Mr. President, despite all of the actions the West has taken to get Russia to pull back from Ukraine, Russia seems intent on taking one step after another -- convoys, transports of arms.  At what point do sanctions no longer work?  Would you envisage the possibility of a necessity of military action to get Russia to pull back from Ukraine? 

THE PRESIDENT:  We are not taking military action to solve the Ukrainian problem.  What we’re doing is to mobilize the international community to apply pressure on Russia.  But I think it is very important to recognize that a military solution to this problem is not going to be forthcoming.  Now, the fact that Russia has taken these actions in violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukrainians has resulted, I believe, in a weakening of Russia, not a strengthening of Russia.  That may not be apparent immediately, but I think it will become increasingly apparent.

What it’s also done is isolated Russia from its trading partners, its commercial partners, international business in ways that I think are going to be very difficult to recover from.  And we will continue to stand firm with our allies and partners that what is happening is wrong, that there is a solution that allows Ukraine and Russia to live peacefully.  But it is not in the cards for us to see a military confrontation between Russia and the United States in this region. 

Keep in mind, however, that I’m about to go to a NATO conference.  Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but a number of those states that are close by are.  And we take our Article 5 commitments to defend each other very seriously, and that includes the smallest NATO member, as well as the largest NATO member.  And so part of the reason I think this NATO meeting is going to be so important is to refocus attention on the critical function that NATO plays to make sure that every country is contributing in order to deliver on the promise of our Article 5 assurances.

Part of the reason I’ll be going to Estonia is to let the Estonians know that we mean what we say with respect to our treaty obligations.  We don’t have those treaty obligations with Ukraine.  We do, however, stand shoulder to shoulder with them, and we’re doing not just a lot of work diplomatically but also financially in order to make sure that they have the best chance at dealing with what is admittedly a very difficult situation.  

Thank you very much, everybody.  

Q    On immigration? 

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, guys.  Thank you. 

Q    Immigration? 

Q    Mr. President, how are external events and your executive decision-making going to impact your decision on immigration reform?  Some people say you’re going to delay this. 

THE PRESIDENT:  Let me just say this:  I’ve been very clear about the fact that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed.  And my preference continues to be that Congress act.  I don’t think anybody thinks that Congress is going to act in the short term, but hope springs eternal that after the midterm elections they may act. 

In the meantime, what I’ve asked Jeh Johnson to do is to look at what kinds of executive authorities we have in order to make the system work better.  And we’ve had a lot of stakeholder discussions; that set of proposals is being worked up. 

And the one thing that I think has happened was the issue with unaccompanied children that got so much attention a couple of months back.  And part of the reason that was important was not because that represented a huge unprecedented surge in overall immigration at the border, but I do think that it changed the perception of the American people about what’s happening at the borders. 

And so one of the things we’ve had -- have had to do is to work through systematically to make sure that that specific problem in a fairly defined area of the border, that we’re starting to deal with that in a serious way.  And the good news is we’ve started to make some progress.  I mean, what we’ve seen so far is that throughout the summer the number of apprehensions have been decreasing -- maybe that’s counterintuitive, but that’s a good thing because that means that fewer folks are coming across.  The number of apprehensions in August are down from July, and they’re actually lower than they were August of last year.  Apprehensions in July were half of what they were in June.  So we’re seeing a significant downward trend in terms of these unaccompanied children. 

And what that I think allows us to do is to make sure that those kids are being taken care of properly, with due process.  At the same time, it’s allowed us to then engage in a broader conversation about what we need to do to get more resources down at the border.  It would have been helped along if Congress had voted for the supplemental that I asked for; they did not.  That means we’ve got to make some administrative choices and executive choices about, for example, getting more immigration judges down there. 

So that has kept us busy, but it has not stopped the process of looking more broadly about how do we get a smarter immigration system in place while we’re waiting for Congress to act.  And it continues to be my belief that if I can’t see congressional action, that I need to do at least what I can in order to make the system work better. 

But some of these things do affect timelines, and we’re just going to be working through as systematically as possible in order to get this done.  But have no doubt, in the absence of congressional action, I’m going to do what I can to make sure the system works better.  

Thank you, guys. 

END               

4:39 P.M. EDT

----------------------

Human rights in post-invasion Iraq have been the subject of concerns and controversies since the 2003 invasion. Concerns have been expressed about conduct by insurgents, the U.S.-led coalition forces and the Iraqi government. The U.S. is investigating several allegations of violations of international and internal standards of conduct in isolated incidents by its own forces and contractors. The UK is also conducting investigations of alleged human rights abuses by its forces. War crime tribunals and criminal prosecution of the numerous crimes by insurgents are likely years away. In late February 2009, the U.S. state department released a report on the human rights situation in Iraq, looking back on the past year (2008).

Since the U.S. military's withdrawal, significant violence has continued in Iraq. The Shia-dominated administration of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved to arrest important Sunni political leaders prior to and following the U.S. withdrawal, and Sunni militant groups stepped up attacks targeting the country's majority Shia population, undermining confidence in the Shia-led government.

 As of mid-June 2014 the internationally recognized government of Iraq is reported to have lost control of large areas of the country's north including the provincial capitals of Mosul and Tikrit. Large scale warfare between the supporters of the Shia led government and Sunni militants composed of Ba'ath loyalists and ISIS is underway.

As of 17 June 2014 ISIS or ISIL has taken control of Iraq's second largest city. They have posted videos online of them massacring hundreds of civilians and soldiers.

Because of the Iran–Iraq War and the 1980s oil glut depleted Iraq's foreign exchange reserves, devastated its economy, and left the country saddled with a foreign debt of more than $40 billion.

After the initial destruction of the war, oil exports gradually increased with the construction of new pipelines and the restoration of damaged facilities.

Iraq's economy is dominated by the oil sector, which has provided about 95% of foreign exchange earnings in modern times.  In the 1980s, financial problems caused by massive expenditures in the eight-year war with Iran and damage to oil export facilities by Iran led the government to implement austerity measures, borrow heavily, and later reschedule foreign debt payments; Iraq suffered economic losses of at least $80 billion from the war.   After the end of hostilities, in 1988, oil exports gradually increased with the construction of new pipelines and restoration of damaged facilities.

Analysts analyzed that Iraqi unemployment remains a problem throughout the country. Suggesting that reducing corruption and implementing reforms - such as bank restructuring and developing the private sector - would be important steps in this direction although nominal GDP grew by 213% in the 1960s, 1325% in the 1970s, 2% in the 1980s, -47% in the 1990s, and 317% in 2000s.

The following metrix shows that iraq's 2009 contract around the nations.

Iraq's main industries are: petroleum, chemicals, textiles, leather, construction materials, food processing, fertilizer, metal fabrication/processing.

Iraq's Main exports were  $93.91 billion with estimated 2012 which export goods were: crude oil 84 percent, crude materials excluding fuels 8 percent, food and live animals 5 percent  which main partner for the highest export country is United States with 21.1%, among the 7 countries.

Iraq's total Imports were $56.89 billion which estimated in 2012 and Import goods are: food, medicine, manufactures.
The most imported countries from Turkey 27.5 percent among the 5 countries.

Iraq's current president is Muhammad Fuad Masum (Kurdish: born 1938) is the seventh and current President of Iraq, in office since 2014. He is a veteran Kurdish politician and was elected as President following the 2014 parliamentary election. The 7th President , Muhammad Fuad  Masum is the second non-Arab president of Iraq, succeeded by the former 6th Iraq President, Jalal Talabani, also Kurdish, and is a confidant of Talabani.

Ukraine was greatly affected by the economic crisis of 2008 and as a result a 15.1% decrease in Ukraine's GDP took place over 2008 and 2009. Inflation slowed in July 2009 and stayed at about 8% in 2011.  Deflation was just avoided in 2012.  0.5% inflation is expected for 2013.  The Ukrainian currency, which had been pegged at a rate of 5:1 to the U.S. dollar, was devalued to 8:1, and was stabilized at that ratio.

More than 60% of Ukraine's exports go to other post-Soviet states, with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan the most important.

Natural gas is Ukraine’s biggest import at present and is the main cause of the country’s structural trade deficit.

Ukrainian politicians have estimated that 40% of its economy is in fact shadow economy.  Due to the double nature of the Ukraine economics, official data GDP and average salary have some significant errors and cannot be applied directly in order to truly understand the economic situation in Ukraine.

Ukraine has natural gas reserves of 1.1 trillion cubic meters and is ranked 26th among countries with proved reserves of natural gas.  Its total gas reserves have been estimated at 5.4 trillion cubic meters.

Estimates by US CIA for natural gas in Ukraine:
consumption:53.16 billion cu m (2010 est.)
production:19.36 billion cu m (2010 est.)
exports:2.6 billion cu m (2010 est.)
imports:36.4 billion cu m (2010 est.)
proved reserves:1.104 trillion cu m (1 January 2012 est.)

Domestic production peaked in 1975 at 68.1 billion cubic meters (bcm).

[nb 1] Since then production gradually declined and has stabilised in recent years at around 20 bcm.[nb 2]

Since 2011 Ukraine has been trying to raise its natural gas production levels in the Black Sea from 1 bcm in 2011 to 3 bcm in 2015.

In 2012 Black Sea production reached 1.2 bcm and it is predicted to rise to 1.65 bcm in 2013.[nb 3]

By 2030 about half of Ukraine’s production will come from non-traditional gas deposits (including 6-11 bcm of shale gas a year); according to the Ukrainian Government's plans.

Since 2012 Ukraine has gradually been switching from natural gas-based to coal gasification technologies developed by China.

However, Ukraine has Europe's third-largest shale gas reserves at 1.2 trillion cubic meters (tcm).  There are two potentially large shale gas fields. The Yuzivska gas field located in Donetsk Oblast (province) and Kharkiv Oblast; and the Olesska field in Lviv Oblast and Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast.

Ukraine signed a shale gas 50-year production sharing agreement with Royal Dutch Shell on 25 January 2013 involving the Yuzivska gas field.

The $10 billion deal was the largest foreign direct investment ever for Ukraine.  Full shale gas production depends on successful results from 15 test wells. Ukraine expects commercial shale gas extraction in 2017. [nb 7] On 13 September 2013 Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov stated that the (containing all expenditures) price of shale gas will be $120–130 per 1,000 cubic meters.

By 2030 a production of 6-11 bcm of shale gas a year is wanted by the Ukrainian Government plans although, On 1 April 2014 Gazprom cancelled Ukraine's natural gas discount as agreed in the 17 December 2013 Ukrainian–Russian action plan because its debt to the company had risen to $1.7 billion since 2013. After intermediary (that had started in May 2014)  trilateral talks between EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, Ukraine and Russia failed on 15 June 2014 the latter halted (after a deadline of 10 a.m. Moscow time passed without it receiving payment) its natural gas supplies to Ukraine the next day.  Unilaterally Gazprom decided that Ukraine had to pay upfront for its natural gas. The company assured that its supplies to other European countries would continue. Ukraine vowed to "provide reliable supply of gas to consumers in Ukraine and we will provide reliable transit to the European Union”.  At the time about 15 percent of European Union's demand depended on Russian natural gas piped through Ukraine.  On 30 May 2014 Ukraine paid $786 million to Gazprom.

Since the office's formation on July 5, 1991, there have been five Presidents of Ukraine. Leonid Kravchuk was the inaugural president, serving three years from 1991 until his resignation in 1994. Leonid Kuchma was the only President to have served two consecutive terms in office. Both Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych served one term, with the latter being replaced by acting president Oleksandr Turchynov, who is the current Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament, on February 21, 2014.

The current president is Petro Poroshenko who took the oath of office on June 7, 2014.

The former Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych still claims to be "the legitimate head of the Ukrainian state elected in a free vote by Ukrainian citizens".

The 2014 election took place on May 25, with businessman Petro Poroshenko winning over 54 percent of the vote; Yulia Tymoshenko was the runner up with around 13 percent. Poroshenko was sworn in as president on June 7, 2014. Meanwhile, President Petro Poroshenko decided to dissolve the Verkhovna Rada of the 7th convocation. and announced for the elections of the new parliament will be held on October 26, 2014.

Resources:White House, Wikipedia, Yahoo, and. Google, Youtube, Ukraine President site. Ukraine Post, Washington Post, Bloomberg August 30th, 2014. Rev. Sept 1st, 2014