Obama calls Netanyahu after criticism of Iran nuclear plan

NEW ORLEANS/WASHINGTON Fri Nov 8, 2013 6:59pm EST

U.S. President Barack Obama shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, September 30, 2013. REUTERS/Jason Reed

U.S. President Barack Obama shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, September 30, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Jason Reed

Related Topics

NEW ORLEANS/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday after the Israeli leader delivered a stinging rebuke to Washington over a deal taking shape in talks between Iran and world powers seeking to curb Tehran's nuclear program.

The telephone call marked an apparent bid by Obama to tamp down growing unease over the emerging Iran deal among the United States' Middle East allies, including Saudi Arabia, as well as mounting opposition to the plan on Capitol Hill.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who flew to Geneva to join the high-stakes talks after what was described as a tense meeting with Netanyahu in Jerusalem, was seeking to close what he called "important gaps" with Iran over the terms of an agreement.

"The president provided the prime minister with an update on negotiations in Geneva and underscored his strong commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which is the aim of the ongoing negotiations," the White House said, adding that they agreed to continue "to stay in touch on this issue."

An Obama administration official said the call between the two leaders - who have a history of strained relations over Iran policy - was "very long" but declined to characterize the tone or provide further details.

Netanyahu warned Kerry and his European counterparts that Iran would be getting "the deal of the century" if they carried out proposals to grant Tehran limited, temporary sanctions relief in exchange for a partial suspension of its nuclear program and a pledge not to expand it.

"Israel utterly rejects it and what I am saying is shared by many in the region, whether or not they express that publicly," Netanyahu told reporters in Jerusalem.

Israel, believed to be the Middle East's only nuclear-armed power, has left open the prospect of military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites if diplomacy fails to halt its atomic drive.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest responded earlier by saying it was premature for Israel and Saudi Arabia to criticize what was still being deliberated in Geneva.

But he said the United States and close ally Israel were "in complete agreement about the need to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Saudi Arabia also has complained bitterly about the U.S. thaw in relations with Shi'ite Muslim Iran, the main regional rival of the Sunni-ruled kingdom.

Tehran is seeking relief from financial sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union that have slashed its oil sales, severely hurting its economy.

Obama said on Thursday that he was open to "modest relief" on sanctions if Iran halts advancements on its nuclear program as talks on a permanent deal continue.

Washington and its allies believe Tehran is using its civilian nuclear program as a cover for seeking the ability to make a weapon, a charge Iran denies.

PUSH FOR FURTHER SANCTIONS

U.S. lawmakers have threatened to slap new sanctions on Iran even as the talks in Geneva have appeared to progress, despite White House appeals to hold off while it tests the diplomatic waters.

Kerry made an unscheduled trip to Geneva on Friday and was due to attend further talks on Saturday.

The Senate banking committee may introduce a bill with new sanctions on Iran's oil sales after similar legislation was passed by the House of Representatives in July. And some Republicans are considering introducing a package of tighter Iran sanctions as an amendment to a defense authorization bill that is expected to be debated next month.

"We need to see the details, but if there really is a deal this bad, lawmakers are going to have to explore their options," a senior aide to a senator said on Friday. Pro-Israel sentiment runs high on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill.

Eric Cantor, majority leader in the Republican-controlled House, said the emerging deal in Geneva would fall short if it failed to completely halt Iran's nuclear program.

"We should not race to accept a bad deal, but should keep up the pressure until the Iranians are willing to make significant concessions," he said.

Criticism also has begun bubbling up from some leading pro-Israel groups in Washington. White House officials met some of the more hawkish American Jewish leaders last week but failed to win broad support for a pause in further sanctions against Iran.

"Any deal that breathes life back into Iran's economy in return for token and superficial moves that put Tehran no further from nuclear breakout ... appears to be a horrific strategic error," said Josh Block, chief executive officer of The Israel Project, a non-partisan, pro-Israel organization.

J Street, a more liberal lobbying group, took a different tack, urging supporters on its website to "tell your senators: don't undermine Iran negotiations with new sanctions."

There was no immediate comment on the Geneva talks from the largest and most influential pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.

(Additional reporting by Tim Gardner, Roberta Rampton and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Alistair Bell and Mohammad Zargham)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (36)
Got to love the rightie/Obama haters, they start criticizing something that has not even happened yet. Just goes to show that in their minds ANYTHING Obama does is bad, no matter what it is. Heck I bet if he could find a way to end all wars, poverty and hunger, the rightie/Obama haters would still find a way to criticize him.

Nov 08, 2013 12:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:
* Heck I bet if he could find a way to end all wars, poverty and hunger, the rightie/Obama haters would still find a way to criticize him.*

Some would, but that’s a partisan for you.

But on the other hand – partisans will not see the damage their ‘own team’ does – no matter how clear and evident it is, I’m not sure which of the two is worse.

Anymore I’m pretty dang cynical of both sides. Most all of the GOP and DNC seem to just be narcissistic fools with only their own agenda for money and power as a concern.

I would love to see Kerry broker a real peace deal there, but in the end; it’s probably really just a ‘dog and pony’ show.

People – for the most part; don’t believe the politicians in office anymore; and for good reason. They will say just about anything to get into office; and once there, they are just pawns for various corporations and special interests.

It would be nice to see an end to these ‘wars’. It’s like in Orwell’s 1984 anymore – just a never-ending war going on. But then – the defense industry would suffer!!

I might be more positive on Obama, but right out of the gate – he was tossing billions of dollars of corporate welfare out. And Sure – maybe Bush started it, but that’s no excuse to persist with it.

They all just seem to be corporate owned, to me. Foreign government officials, like Angela Merkle – have more rights to her privacy than US citizens do – from it’s own government no less. how is that holding to the concept of a free nation?

For the little bit of good Obama might do – there are 10 other things that are harmful. And hell, I can’t think of anything Bush did good. War, that’s about it.

But I bet Cheney is MUCH richer now.

But I really don’t see poverty and hunger ending – when billions are being spent on Spying and Drone assassinations. However; if those billions were spent on education or farming subsidies… well…

Nov 08, 2013 2:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MrScott wrote:
There is no deal so there is no need to phrase or criticize. However if Obama is behind it, I certainly would be cautious. He is not known for doing anything good.

Nov 08, 2013 4:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.