WarSclerotic

Israel Hayom | The six-month war.

Uri Heitner

Israel Hayom | The main battle is still ahead of us.

Dan Margalit

Obama Signals a Shift From Military Might to Diplomacy – NYTimes.com.

( Since NY Times acts as unofficial spokesman for the WH, you can be sure at least that it is what Obama wants you to think. – JW )

Jewel Samad/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

“For the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress on Iran’s nuclear program,” President Obama said on Monday.

By MARK LANDLER

Published: November 25, 2013

So its not the deal of the century | JPost | Israel News.

( “The deal is neither good or bad.”  Pragmatic?  Sour grapes?  Ideology?  Fatal delusion? – JW )

By ALON PINKAS

11/25/2013 22:25

The deal is neither good nor bad. It is an interim deal. As such, it was both predictable and almost unavoidable, and as the idiom/cliche goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Sometimes, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory isn’t smart politics.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu could and should have declared a partial, cautious, reserved victory, but a victory no less. Predictably he did not, choosing instead to lament, complain, put on world display his differences with the US and warn against “a bad agreement” – an improvement over his “deal of the century for Iran” statement.

Substantively Netanyahu is right. In terms of policy, he could have dealt with the agreement differently.

The prime minister who devoted years to explaining that radical Islam combined with nuclear capability is a global issue got what he demanded: a global agreement to curtail the Iranian nuclear program. Yes, it is imperfect, replete with question marks over whether Iran is to remain a “breakthrough nuclear power,” but that is the nature of agreements borne out of negotiations.

If the issue of a nuclear Iran were not such a serious, implication-laden issue, we’d be excused for being amused by the exaggerated, overhyped pendulum of hysteria and jubilation emanating from both sides of the debate.

One the one hand, the P5+1 (aka “The Geneva Six”) tell the world that this is a major step forward, that Iran’s military nuclear ambitions have been curbed, and the deal’s advocates are all over the place extolling its historic significance and momentous achievements – exuding false, premature and dangerous jubilation.

On the other hand, there are Israel and (less publicly) Saudi Arabia, which both warn that the deal is capitulation – that it is a display of spineless weakness that smacks of appeasement and would easily and inevitably allow Iran to retain its “breakthrough/threshold/ turn-key capacity” – exuding false, premature and dangerous hysteria.

From a strategic Israeli perspective, it is strange that Israel does not try to own the agreement and perpetuates an “OMG, we’re doomed” approach.

If someone had told Israel a year ago that by November 2013, Syria’s chemical stockpiles would be subject to international inspections and destroyed by virtue of an enforceable Security Council resolution and that Iran would sign a deal designed to curtail its nuclear program, that someone would be dismissed as a lunatic entertaining fantasies.

But this is the new geopolitical reality, one that Israel should endorse – observing it closely, skeptically and vigilantly, but surely not outright rejecting and vilifying it as the end of the world as we know it, which is exactly how official Israel has been sounding in the last week or so.

Listening to Netanyahu’s attitude, reactions and statements, one cannot escape two unequivocal trends: While he is making extraordinarily incisive and important points on the potentially perilous pitfalls of the agreement, he is at the same time isolating Israel. He is “Israelizing” the Iran issue after years of successfully alerting the world that a nuclear Iran is a broad-regional, even global issue, not an exclusively Israeli one. Most importantly, he is publicly, visibly and vociferously exposing and perhaps deepening a rift with the US. That is a critical self-inflicted dent.

The deal is neither good nor bad. It is an interim deal. As such, it was both predictable and almost unavoidable, and as the idiom/cliche goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The validity and endurance of the deal will be tested through verification, compliance and time.

US President Barack Obama called as early as 2009 for “engagement with Iran.” A policy was never crafted because Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in his ludicrous, outlandish and incendiary statements on all things Israel, made dialogue impossible.

But in fact, the US under president George W. Bush made an offer to Iran in 2003 – an offer that Netanyahu would have endorsed. Iran, naturally, refused. As a result, the number of working centrifuges grew exponentially from 160 to approximately 18,500 today. The amount of enriched uranium grew in the Obama years from 2,000 kg. to 9,000 kg.

This is not to say that the Geneva deal is “good,” but these are figures that demonstrate what the absence of any negotiations created and what could have transpired and evolved had this agreement not been reached.

When Hassan Rouhani was elected president of Iran in June, it became clear that a deal would be in the making.

In retrospect, we now also know that the US and Iran conducted back-channel negotiations in the last three months. Israel either was not apprised of or had no influence on this process, both bad signs of a strained relationship.

Netanyahu’s raison d’être as prime minister is to prevent a nuclear Iran.

He is genuine, honest and historically conscious regarding this topic. No games, no spin, no distractions.

Which is exactly why he is at fault for failing to prioritize. When you incessantly confront the US president, bicker and complain and accuse him on issues such as “settlement expansion” in the West Bank, you lose credibility, you lose open channels, you lose the ability to conduct a discreet and intimate dialogue with your greatest and only real ally.

And on what do you confront Obama? Issues that are not vital or existential, such as settlement expansion. An understanding could have been forged as early as 2009- 2010, but Netanyahu chose to challenge the president and all but endorse his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, in 2012.

You also cannot tell the world that sanctions don’t and will never work, yet accuse the world of appeasement when it considers easing some sanctions as part of a negotiated deal.

In an ideal setting, Israel should have had a much greater say in the agreement because, the faults above notwithstanding, Netanyahu is making poignant and critical points regarding the agreement’s quality and fundamental flaws: the short period between Iran’s “breakthrough” capability and acquisition of military nuclear capability; the fact that it is not dismantling centrifuges; the fact that it maintains the right to enrich uranium.

Overall, Netanyahu’s prime objective now is to develop a working dialogue with Obama in order to have some influence over the longer-term deal with Iran. Choosing to try and undermine the (done) deal, weaken Obama and consequently further “Israelize” the Iran issue is not smart policy. An interim deal, good, bad or ugly, is in place. Think forward.

The writer is a former Israeli consul- general in New York. He was the advisor to four foreign ministers and is a fellow at the Israel Policy Forum.

Turkey seeking to boost Iran trade after nuclear deal | JPost | Israel News.

( Netanyahu warned this would happen, and now… It begins. – JW )

11/26/2013 15:02

Ankara is eager to reignite economic ties after losing billions in trade revenue due to sanctions on Tehran.

Turkey hopes to increase trade with Iran following the deal reached between Iran and world powers last weekend that eases some of the sanctions in exchange for a curb on the country’s nuclear program.

Turkey lost billions in trade revenue because of the sanctions and is eager to reignite economic ties.

“I hope that Turkey will be able to export all its goods to Iran once again, after the easing of sanctions,” said Economy Minister Zafer Caglayan on Monday according to a report in the Turkish newspaper Today’s Zaman.

Caglayan said that because of the sanctions on Iran, Turkey lost $6 billion during the first nine months of last year compared to this year.

According to Turkey’s Economy Ministry, Iran was the third highest export market last year and in the first nine months of this year exports to Iran were only $3.4 billion, said Caglayan.

The other hope is that turkey would be able to increase crude oil imports, Energy Minister Taner Yildiz told a local TV station, according to the report.

“Even if it were not possible to match the previous levels of imports, I believe our purchases could go up to 130,000 or 140,000 barrels per day,” he said.

▶ Amb. John Bolton: Fatal Flaws In Nuclear Agreement With Iran – YouTube.

This analysis of the flaws in the Iran deal makes clear that there is no basis for a “real” deal and that Iran, having no intention of giving up its nuclear program is using the 6 month deal to reduce sanctions, split the West and gain legitimacy for its uranium enrichment program.

It’s the most coherent analysis of the situation that I’ve seen.

Compare it to either of the John Kerry vids I posted…

Obama moves may start war – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Netanyahu, like any other responsible Israeli leader, would rather bring about World War III than last Israelis

Noah Beck

According to a recent news report, President Barack Obama has for over a year secretly conducted negotiations with Iran (through his adviser Valerie Jarrett), and the Geneva talks on Iranian nukes now appear to be just a facade providing international legitimacy for Obama’s secret deal with Iran.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s contradictory criticism of Israeli objections to that deal only suggests more bad faith by the Obama administration. Kerry claims that Israel has been kept fully apprised of the negotiations with Iran but then argues that Israel has never seen the terms of the proposed deal with Iran and therefore shouldn’t question it. The Obama administration apparently wants to present the nuclear deal as a fait accompli that Israel must simply accept as is.

In what is becoming a familiar pattern, Russia is readily moving in to the Mideast areas where US influence has waned because of Obama’s many fumbles in the region. Last August, Saudi Arabia made it clear that it would happily replace US aid to Egypt (highlighting one of many issues straining US relations with yet another Mideast ally).

On the issue of Iranian nukes, France has effectively replaced the US as Israel’s strongest ally and as the most sober-minded advocate of caution when negotiating over the single greatest threat to global security. Incredibly, Saudi Arabia is reportedly replacing the US in providing logistical support for an Israeli strike on Iranian nukes.

Yaakov Amidror, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s former national security adviser, recently indicated that the Israeli Air Force has been preparing for a potential strike on Iran. According to Amidror, such a strike could set back Iran’s nuclear program “for a very long time.” So Israel can go it alone, if it must, although the results will be far messier than those produced by a stronger US approach.

While the Obama administration has suggested that critics of the current Geneva deal are “on a march to war,” it is that very deal – which gives Iran a nuclear breakout capacity – that will force the states most threatened by Iran to take preemptive military action.

Even if one accepts Obama’s apparent view that decades-long alliances matter no more than do US assurances, there are other compelling reasons for Obama to reverse his disastrous Iran policy before it’s too late. Granting an Iranian nuclear weapons breakout capability will produce catastrophic consequences (many of which Obama himself acknowledged, in his March 2012 speech):

1. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will effectively be finished. The world’s most volatile region will become even more explosive as other regional players scramble to establish their own nuclear arsenals to counter Iran’s. And rogue nations will realize that by following Iran’s deceptive playbook, they too can develop a nuclear capability.
2. The force of UN Security Council Resolutions will be further diluted, as Iran will continue flouting six of them with impunity.
3. Iran-backed terrorist organizations – including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah – will grow emboldened by the nuclear umbrella of their patron.
4. Terrorism could go nuclear, should Iran share some of its nuclear materials with the terrorist groups that it supports.
5. US influence in the Middle East will erode even more, as Obama further damages US relationships and influence in the region.
6. US credibility throughout the world will plummet. If the US cannot be trusted to provide strong leadership on the national security issue of greatest concern to the free world, where US interests are directly at stake, what does that mean for US credibility more generally?
7. Global instability and oil prices will skyrocket. If Israel, with Saudi assistance, strikes Iran’s nuclear program, the Iranian retaliation that follows could spark World War III. Will Iran attack Saudi oil fields or otherwise pour more fuel onto the Sunni-Shia fire in Syria? Will Iran and Iran-backed Hezbollah (estimated to have at least 45,000 missiles) launch a massive attack killing thousands of Israeli civilians? Will some of the Syrian chemical weapons held by Assad (another Iranian ally) end up hitting Israel? How would Israel respond? Is this how Armageddon happens?
8. US interests will be attacked. Obama may think that his policy of appeasement will shield the US from Iranian reprisals, but the opposite is true. When the US appears so weak and ready to abandon allies (as with Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia), Iran has less fear of attacking the US and more reasons to do so, as a way to exacerbate US tensions with Israel.

Weak – but still reversible – policies

Will attacking US interests be yet another Obama “red line” that gets crossed with impunity? If so, then whatever is left of US deterrence and credibility will have been destroyed. If not, then the US will get sucked into another Mideast war but on terms dictated by the adversary, and without any first-strike advantage.

The catastrophic consequences outlined above would all directly result from Obama’s disastrously weak – but still reversible – policies on the Iranian nuclear threat.

The Jewish people have a long memory, and it pervades the thinking of Israeli civilians and top brass alike. Thus, Israel’s brief history is replete with daring military operations to protect its security. In Netanyahu’s speech at the last UN General Assembly, in what may have been Israel’s final warning to the world to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat before Israel must, the Prime Minister summed up – from his personal family history – the collective experience that guides Israel on fateful decisions:

“(O)ne cold day in the late 19th century, my grandfather Nathan and his younger brother Judah were standing in a railway station in the heart of Europe. They were seen by a group of anti-Semitic hoodlums who ran towards them waving clubs, screaming ‘Death to the Jews.’ My grandfather shouted to his younger brother to flee and save himself, and he then stood alone against the raging mob to slow it down. They beat him senseless, they left him for dead, and before he passed out, covered in his own blood, he said to himself ‘What a disgrace, what a disgrace. The descendants of the Macabees lie in the mud powerless to defend themselves.’

He promised himself then that if he lived, he would take his family to the Jewish homeland and help build a future for the Jewish people. I stand here today as Israel’s prime minister because my grandfather kept that promise.”

Obama should know by now that if he forces Israel’s hand, then Israel alone will neutralize the Iranian nuclear threat, regardless of how messy the aftermath may be. Netanyahu – like any other responsible Israeli leader – would rather bring about World War III than the last Israelis.

Noah Beck is the author of “The Last Israelis,” an apocalyptic novel about Iranian nukes and other geopolitical issues in the Middle East

Our world: The goal of Obama’s foreign policy | JPost | Israel News.

( Glick goes off the deep end here.  Reminiscent of the looniest of “birthers,” she believes Obama’s foreign policy goal is “to weaken the State of Israel.” – JW )

By CAROLINE B. GLICK

11/25/2013 21:52

Obama never explained how allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium decreases the likelihood of war.

US President Barack Obama. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

It isn’t surprising that the US and the other five powers signed a deal with Iran on Saturday. Over the past few weeks, US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear that they were committed to signing a deal with Iran as quickly as possible.

And it isn’t surprising that the deal these overeager leaders signed with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism makes the world a much more dangerous place than it was before the agreement was concluded.

With the US and its allies far more eager to reach an accord with Iran on its illicit nuclear weapons program than Iran was, it was obvious from the outset that any deal ultimately reached, at least as long as these negotiating conditions remained in force, would facilitate rather than inhibit Iran’s quest to build a nuclear arsenal. And indeed, the sanctions relief that Iran has gained simply by signing on the dotted line will be sufficient to buffet the Iranian economy through a successful nuclear weapons test.

Iran will achieve nuclear capability while enriching itself through the deal because the deal gives Iran sanctions relief without requiring Iran to make any irreversible concessions. Indeed, Iran just received the international community’s permission to continue to enrich uranium, keep all its nuclear installations open and build new centrifuges.

While the deal isn’t surprising in and of itself, Obama’s decision to conclude it now makes clear the true goal of his foreign policy. To understand that goal, it is first necessary to consider an aspect of the deal that, on the surface, makes little sense.

The negotiations with the Iranians that culminated in Saturday night’s agreement went on for a year.

And yet, the final deal reflects Iran’s opening positions.

That is, over the course of the entire year, American and European negotiators were not able to move Iran’s positions one iota.

So what has the Obama administration been doing for the past year? Since Iran’s positions were the same all along, why didn’t they sign this deal a year ago? The US’s strength relative to Iran did not diminish significantly since a year ago. So the US didn’t need this agreement more now than it did a year ago.

Clearly, Obama did not spend the last year trying to build domestic American support for a deal that enables the regime that calls daily for the annihilation of America to become a nuclear power. With Iran building military bases all over Central and South America, Obama never bothered trying to make the case to the American people that they would be more secure with this regime in possession of the capacity to kill millions of Americans with one bomb.

Obama never stood before the Congress to explain how a deal that gives America’s Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program advances US national security. He never explained how allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium decreases the likelihood of war.

So what did Obama need the last year for? If he wasn’t concerned with getting a less dangerous deal, and he didn’t care what the American people though about his facilitation of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, what prevented him from okaying the agreement last year? To ascertain the answer, it is worth considering Finance Minister Yair Lapid’s comments Sunday morning. Beyond noting the nuclear deal’s danger to Israel’s security, Lapid said, “I am worried not only over the deal but that we have lost the world’s attention.”

And indeed, Israel has lost the world’s attention. Its appropriately deep concerns over Iran’s nuclear behavior were belittled, ignored and derided, first and foremost by the Obama administration. Worse than belittling Israel’s concerns, which are completely shared by the Sunni Arab world, Obama and Kerry have castigated as warmongers those Americans who agree with Israel’s concerns and have attacked them as traitors who seek to push America into an unnecessary war. At the same time, they have presented the dispute as one of Israel against the rest of the world, ignoring that the Sunni Arab world shares Israel’s concerns.

Statements to this effect from US officials have been legion since the details of the deal were first divulged to Israel and the Gulf States by the French and the British three weeks ago.

The brazenness of these anti-Israel statements points to the main action that Obama and his advisors have engaged in for the past year, while not moving Iran a millimeter from its opening position at the nuclear talks.

Over the past year, Obama has engaged in systematically weakening Israel’s position both regionally and in Washington. Regionally, the US has forced Israel into talks with the Palestinians that are engineered to weaken Israel strategically and diplomatically. The US has delegitimized Israel’s legal rights to sovereignty and self-defense, while effectively justifying Palestinian terrorism as a legitimate response to Israeli actions – which themselves were perfectly legal. So, too, the US has given a green light to the EU’s illegal, discriminatory economic war against Israel.

Beyond that, the Obama administration has significantly expanded the prospect of war between Israel and Syria by leaking Israeli strikes against Syrian targets that posed a threat to Israel’s security.

The US has also weakened Israel’s capacity to take steps short of war to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons possessing state by leaking key components of Israel’s covert operations against Iran’s nuclear program.

In the US, the Obama administration has targeted Israel’s American supporters. This has been advanced, first and foremost, by actively weakening AIPA C. As Lee Smith explained in Tablet, the administration has taken three key steps to neutralize AIPA C as an effective force in Washington.

It has supported J Street and so legitimized anti-Israel policymaking.

Obama appointed outspoken critics of the US-Israel alliance to key positions in his national security team. First and foremost in this arena was his appointment of Chuck Hagel to serve as defense secretary.

Finally, Obama discredited AIPA C, painting it as an unthinking warmonger by forcing the group to lobby Congress to support his helter-skelter rush to war against Syria. The coup de grace was Obama’s sudden abandonment of his plans to bomb Syria, which left AIPA C high and dry, looking like an anti-Semitic caricature of itself.

The culmination of this long process of delegitimizing Israel as a warmongering, ungrateful ally and its supporters as turncoats who are forcing the US to endanger itself for the benefit of the Jewish state was the administration’s hysterical campaign against Israel and its supporters in the lead-up to Saturday’s signing ceremony in Geneva. Everyone, from the White House to Kerry, accused Israel and its supporters of trying to force the US to fight an unnecessary war.

When we consider Obama’s decision to wait for a year to sign the deal that enables Iran to become a nuclear power in the context of his main activities over the past year, we understand his foreign policy.

His goal is not to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. It isn’t even to facilitate a rapprochement between America and Iran. The goal of Obama’s foreign policy is to weaken the State of Israel.

caroline@carolineglick.com

Netanyahu shifts to backroom diplomacy on Iran deal | JPost | Israel News.

By HERB KEINON

11/26/2013 01:28

PM to send team to DC to discuss permanent agreement; Obama reaffirms “shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

While continuing to slam the Geneva interim agreement between Iran and the P5+1, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu shifted gears on Monday and began focusing on ways to impact the comprehensive agreement that now needs to be worked out.

Netanyahu, who spoke with US President Barack Obama Sunday about the agreement, said at a Likud faction meeting in the Knesset on Monday that he and Obama agreed an Israeli team headed by National Security Adviser Yossi Cohen would leave for the US shortly to discuss the permanent agreement.

Sunday’s accord is a six-month agreement with an option to extend, meant to limit the Iranian nuclear program as the P5+1 – the US, UK, Russia, China, France and Germany – try to hammer out a comprehensive accord with Iran. In return, Iran received some sanctions relief.

The permanent agreement, Netanyahu said, must lead to one result: “The dismantling of Iran’s military nuclear capability.”

“I would be happy if I could join those voices around the world that are praising the Geneva agreement,” Netanyahu said. “It is true that the international pressure which we applied was partly successful and has led to a better result than what was originally planned, but this is still a bad deal. It reduces the pressure on Iran without receiving anything tangible in return, and the Iranians who laughed all the way to the bank are themselves saying that this deal has saved them.”

That being said, diplomatic officials clarified that Jerusalem was well aware the agreement is a done deal, and that now the focus will be on “what happens down the line.”

“Israel intends to be a player,” an official said, first and foremost in consultations with the US, but also with the other members of the P5+1.

While the Prime Minister’s Office gave out no information about the Obama- Netanyahu phone call, the White House issued a readout saying the two leaders “reaffirmed their shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

According to the statement, Obama “underscored that the United States will remain firm in our commitment to Israel, which has good reason to be skeptical about Iran’s intentions.”

The decision to send the team to Washington, as well as Netanyahu’s slightly toned down rhetoric on the agreement on Monday, indicates that the tactics on how to impact the permanent accord are shifting from the strident public diplomacy of the last two weeks – that saw Netanyahu launch a very public full-court press against the accord – to more quiet backroom diplomacy to impact the outcome.

The focus will now be on what has to be done, not what happened up until now, one official said.

Israel will seek to impact on the parameters of a future agreement, as well as what happens at the end of six months if no agreement is reached.

Israel’s position is that – in any permanent agreement – Iran must dismantle its centrifuges, transfer out of the country its stockpiles of enriched uranium, close the uranium enrichment facility at Fordow and stop work on the heavy water reactor at Arak.

The Geneva agreement, known formally as a Joint Plan of Action, leaves wiggle room for the six-month deadline, stating that the deal is “renewable by mutual consent.” Jerusalem is keen on ensuring that any wiggle room is limited, and that the negotiation on a comprehensive accord does not carry on endlessly.

Speaking to the Likud faction, Netanyahu said he wanted to remind the MKs that “only last week, during the talks, the leaders of Iran repeated their commitment to destroy the State of Israel, and I reiterate here today my commitment, as prime minister of Israel, to prevent them from achieving the ability to do so.”

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague seemed to respond to these words, and their hint at possible military action, by telling the British parliament that “we would discourage anybody in the world, including Israel, from taking any steps that would undermine this agreement and we will make that very clear to all concerned.”

Hague, who gave an update on the nuclear talks in Geneva, said he had not seen any signs that any country opposed to the agreement would try to disrupt it “in any practical way,” but said Britain would be “on its guard.”

In a related development, Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz met on Monday with European ambassadors and said while Israel was disappointed with the Geneva agreement, it hoped that the final agreement would obligate Iran to dismantle its capacity to develop nuclear weapons.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Iran nuclear deal bears Obama’s personal stamp | JPost | Israel News.

By REUTERS

11/26/2013 08:57

US president approved final language on American side of accord reached in Geneva; Obama seeking to use deal as legacy-shaping foreign policy accomplishment at time of low domestic approval ratings.

WASHINGTON – When push came to shove in the closing hours of marathon negotiations in Geneva on Iran’s nuclear program, it was President Barack Obama, back at the White House, who approved the final language on the US side before the historic deal was clinched.

It was perhaps only fitting that Obama had the last say. His push for a thaw with Tehran, a longtime US foe, dates back to before his presidency, and no other foreign policy issue bears his personal stamp more since he took office in early 2009.

Behind the risky diplomatic opening is a desire for a big legacy-shaping achievement and a deep aversion to getting America entangled in another Middle East conflict – motives that override misgivings to the Iran deal expressed by close allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.

That may explain why Obama, even as he left the troubleshooting to Secretary of State John Kerry and gave him much of the credit for securing the diplomatic coup, has taken “ownership” of the Iran issue like no other.

His engagement – both in private and in public and according to aides, at a level of minute detail – is in contrast to a more aloof approach as Egypt came under military rule and Syria descended into civil war.

“It’s the top item on his foreign agenda for the rest of his term,” a source close to the White House’s thinking said of the Iran issue. “He doesn’t want to leave anything to chance.”

The stakes are enormous for Obama. If the talks break down and Iran dashes to build an atomic bomb before the West can stop it, he could go into the history books as the president whose naivete allowed the Islamic Republic to go nuclear.

The breakthrough with Iran is also worrying the many pro-Israel members of Congress, including heavyweights in his own Democratic Party like Senator Charles Schumer.

Last weekend’s Iran pact – a preliminary agreement on modest sanctions relief in exchange for temporary curbs on Iran’s nuclear activities – was no case of accidental diplomacy.

Obama promised to seek direct engagement with Iran and other US enemies during the 2008 presidential campaign, drawing accusations from Republicans that he was promoting appeasement.

He then used his first inaugural address in 2009 to offer to extend a hand if the Iranian leadership would “unclench their fist.” After being snubbed, he galvanized international support for crippling sanctions that ultimately forced Tehran into the latest negotiations.

Obama instructed his aides to arrange the historic telephone conversation he had with Iran’s relatively moderate new president, Hassan Rouhani, in September, and authorized secret bilateral talks that laid the groundwork for the more formal Geneva rounds between Iran and world powers, US officials say.

On Saturday, Kerry spoke by phone to Obama from Geneva to discuss the outstanding issues in the final tense stages of negotiations, a senior State Department official said. “This went all the way up to (Obama) personally approving the final language,” the official said.

While it may not be unusual for Obama to cast his trained legal eye on government-to-government agreements, his close attention to the wording of the deal-in-the-making underscored the sensitivity of the breakthrough document and his determination to get it right.

Once the deal was signed in Switzerland, Obama stepped in front of the cameras at the White House in a rare late-night appearance and hailed it as “an important first step toward a comprehensive solution that addresses our concerns.”

It was a chance to tout a foreign policy accomplishment at a time when Obama is struggling with a flawed healthcare rollout and low approval ratings at home.