Unlike the US Congress, the American people are strongly behind an agreement with Iran

[karynnj]

After several weeks of a full court press by Netanyahu, AIPAC and other forces, many in Congress are pushing AGAINST Obama's work on getting an agreement with Iran that would increase inspections and slow down activities that produce highly enriched uranium - while loosening some of Iran's money that is frozen across the world.

Here is the polling data - http://pollingreport.com/iran.htm 64% of people favor such an agreement, while 30 % are against. You would never guess that reading the news articles.

The AP article on the negotiations that appears in papers like the Boston Globe and most smaller papers is negatively biased. There lead paragraph starts by referring to Obama as "plunging ahead" towards a nuclear deal.
http://www.boston.com/business/news/2013/11/19/obama-plunges-ahead-toward-iran-nuclear-deal/tuh8oWutOu1xvAx2hQGf1I/story.html

Then there are other papers, with headlines like "Kerry disses Netanyahu". How did he do that? He worked with the 5 other countries toward an agreement AS OBAMA DIRECTED HIM. Apparently, some think he should have listened to Netanyahu instead! He has been extremely polite to Netanyahu in person and when speaking in the US.

Netanyahu has argued that the right course is strengthening the sanctions. This ignores that the sanctions are already described as the toughest that ever been imposed. Given that description, the comments of Kerry, Obama and other leaders that even what is loosened could be retightened if Iran does not act in good faith - why would anyone think that making them worse - while we are productively negotiating makes any sense.

Here, Netanyahu offers increased sanctions as a middle way - between war and a "Netanyahu defined bad deal". First of all, the main person speaking of war is not the President of Iran, but Netanyahu himself - so arguing that more sanctions can avoid war requires a lot of chutzpah when he is the one threatening it. He also DEFINES sight unseen any deal as bad. Here, he tries to make increased sanctions seem innocuous. However, I think we learned in the 1990s what the impact of sanctions was on the poor in Iraq - and we are saying the current sanctions are tougher!

The only organization I have seen that has a petition to support Obama is J Street, the liberal Jewish lobbying group that actually is closer to what American Jews support. http://www.boston.com/business/news/2013/11/19/obama-plunges-ahead-toward-iran-nuclear-deal/tuh8oWutOu1xvAx2hQGf1I/story.html

[Turbineguy]

1. Maybe that's because ordinary Americans

meet ordinary Iranians who by and large are very nice people.

[karynnj]

2. True in my case

I had a Persian officemate years ago who was one of the nicest people I ever met.

I think it also is that people see diplomacy as an alternative to war - and prefer that it be tried. Jstreet had this on there Facebook page.



Given the outrage when Obama spoke of a tactical military response to using chemical weapons in Syria, I wish that DU had even a fraction of that angst against those who could scuttle this effort. Proactively supporting the President against the astroturfing that we all know Netanyahu has asked of various groups like AIPAC could help Congressmen know that they do not have the support of the majority of Americans.

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. Why is Iran the bogeyman, anyway?

We have them surrounded by military bases.

We've already stolen a bunch of their money.

The only reason I can see for all this is to maintain Israel's position as the region's only nuclear-armed power. Why aren't we imposing sanctions on Israel in the name of a nuclear-free Middle East?