question:You are an AI assistant that follows instruction extremely well. Help as much as you can. W: Yes, I just got here yesterday. And you? M: I'm a native. W: Oh, really? Everyone else I've met so far has been a tourist like us. I was beginning to think that there were no natives. M: Well. San Francisco has a lot of different ethnic groups so you might think you're seeing a lot of foreigners. But actually, the city has a population of about 700 000. W: What are the different ethnic groups? M: Web, after whites, the largest one is blacks. W: I thought it was Chinese. M: It's true that San Francisco has the largest Chinese community outside of Asia. But there are many more blacks here than Chinese. W: That's interesting. Don't most of the Chinese people live in China-town? M: Well, no, they live all over the city, but China-town is definitely the center of Chinese culture here. That's where you'll find the best Chinese restaurants, bookstores, art, theaters, things like that. W: What about the Japanese? Doesn't San Francisco have a large Japanese population too? M: No, actually there are only about 12 000 Japanese people here, but we do have an area called "Japan-town" that has Japanese restaurants and bookstores. W: You seem to know a lot about this city. M: Well, most San Franciscans think their city is pretty special. We like to talk about it. Besides, I teach ethnic history at the university here. W: No wonder you know so much! What was said before this conversation? The answer to this question is:

question:You are an AI assistant. User will you give you a task. Your goal is to complete the task as faithfully as you can. While performing the task think step-by-step and justify your steps. Please add spaces between words: Andasyou’llseebelow,ithasn’tsimplybeenamatteroffixingasmallbug,orimprovingtournamentfilters;thesesiteshavebeenmakingmajorchangesandsomemajorlaunchesofnewsoftware.

question:You are a helpful assistant, who always provide explanation. Think like you are answering to a five year old. Article: A nice detail from the JPost’s write-up of today’s grand sellout. Turns out “snap inspections” are actually “nearly-a-month’s-notice inspections.” Negotiators failed to meet the standard of achieving “anytime, anywhere” access that several members of the United States Congress had demanded as a part of any nuclear deal. Instead, in the event Iran objects to an IAEA request for access to a specific site, a “clock” will begin that grants the two sides 14 days to negotiate. If that period expires without any resolution reached directly between Iran and the IAEA, the Joint Commission would have seven days to advise them on a way forward. Iran would then have three days to comply with the commission’s final advice, bringing the total time on the clock to 24 days… “We don’t think that ‘anytime, anywhere’ inspections are feasible,” the official said. “It’s just not something that happens anywhere in the world.” All you need to do to make sense of this deal is believe, as the White House obviously does, that attacking Iran’s enrichment facilities would be a worse outcome than Iran building a bomb. That’s it. The great shining “achievement” of the deal isn’t that it eliminates Iran’s program — it doesn’t — but that it removes any remaining domestic pressure on Obama to further escalate with Iran, either by sanctions or military strike, to stop it. The eternal argument against attacking Iran’s program is that virtually no one believes the attack would completely destroy all of the country’s nuclear infrastructure, just damage enough of it to set Tehran back 10 years or so. But … that’s exactly what today’s deal does. It’s not a permanent fix. By its own terms and Obama’s admission, after 12 years of compliance, Iran will be able to introduce advanced centrifuges and reduce its “breakout” time to nearly nothing, making it a full “nuclear threshold” state. In an interview with NPR in April, Mr. Obama said that in “year 13, 14, 15” of the agreement, the breakout time might shrink “almost down to zero,” as Iran is expected to develop and use advanced centrifuges then… The official asserted that the reduction in the breakout time would be gradual because Iran’s stockpile of less enriched uranium would be limited for 15 years. But after that period, Iran could have a substantial enrichment capability. “It is going to be a gradual decline,” the official said. “At the end of, say, 15 years, we are not going to know what that is.” An attack would achieve little except to buy the west time. Today’s deal … achieves little except to buy the west time, except Iran also gets many billions of dollars in economic stimulus via sanctions relief plus an influx of arms and ballistic missile technology when the UN embargoes on those are lifted within the next eight years plus, most importantly, the blessing of the international community once Iran begins enriching again at the end of the deal. What will the argument against Iran’s program be circa 2030 when they decide to install state-of-the-art centrifuges capable of producing enough enriched uranium for a bomb in days or even hours? We’re signing a deal today that allows them to do that. With this, the west formally endorses Iran as a nuclear state — just not in the near term, when President Precious rather than one of his successors would have to deal with the consequences. So Obama’s a big winner today. Now he doesn’t have to think about this for the next 18 months, unless Iran is so stupid as to risk getting caught cheating before he leaves office in 2017. Iran, obviously, is the biggest winner. Kerry’s a winner in that he’ll now surely get a Nobel and a “legacy,” if not quite the one he’s expecting. The big losers are the Sunnis of the Middle East, who’ll need to scramble to counter an Iran that’s suddenly flush with cash and will have easier access to weapons by the end of the decade, and the American public, which will have an even worse headache from Iran’s nuclear program to deal with before the 2028 election than it has now. Via the Free Beacon, here’s CNN anchor Jim Sciutto marveling that if you’d told the White House these would be the terms of the final deal a few years ago, they … wouldn’t have been too happy. Go figure. Two questions to ponder now. One: What’s the argument against giving, say, Saudi Arabia this exact same nuclear timeline — 10 years of no, or low, enrichment followed by the right to enrich their brains out with the international community’s blessing? The grand irony of this capitulation is that Obama, a guy who campaigned against nuclear proliferation, is effectively removing the taboo against new nuclear states. If you want to build a bomb, that’s fine, but you need to do it gradually, on the west’s schedule. Two: Obama and Kerry have no choice now but to aggressively pursue a grand bargain with Iran, right? The only way to neutralize an Iranian bomb after this is to make them so friendly to the west that they wouldn’t think of using it. And the clock is ticking on that given the near certainty that (a) a Republican will return to the White House sometime before 2028, when the deal will be winding down, and (b) that Republican will be far less inclined towards detente with Iran than Obama is. If Obama wants to bind the hands of his successors (or at least make it much harder for them to start a new cold war with Tehran), he needs to strike that grand bargain himself. Can’t wait to see the magic beans we get as part of that deal. ||||| President Obama announces Iran deal from the White House Tuesday morning. President Obama announces Iran deal from the White House Tuesday morning. Twenty months after formal negotiations began, Iran and six world powers have produced an agreement designed to curtail Iran's nuclear program for 15 years in exchange for lifting international economic and oil sanctions. The agreement requires Iran to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent, mothball two-thirds of the centrifuges it uses to carry out enrichment, turn a once-secret centrifuge facility into a research center, redesign the Arak reactor that could produce plutonium for a bomb and open itself to the most intrusive nuclear inspection regime ever imposed on any nation. Here is the entire text of the agreement. Here is a link to the president's address. In an early morning address at the White House that was broadcast live in Iran, President Obama said compliance with the agreement is "not built on trust, it is built on verification." He now faces what is certain to be a contentious debate in Congress over the deal a large percentage of Republicans—particularly the bomb-bomb-bomb crowd—as well as some Democrats will likely oppose: But Mr. Obama made it abundantly clear that he would fight to preserve the deal in its entirety, saying, “I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.” Not everyone was celebrating the accord. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, called it a “historic mistake” that would ultimately create a “terrorist nuclear superpower.” The agreement's foes will have a difficult path. They need a two-thirds majority to overcome any presidential vetoes and putting together that many votes in the matter seems out of reach. Without an agreement, the Obama administration says, Iran currently has the technological skills, facilities and fissionable material to build a nuclear bomb within two to three months. Taken altogether the agreement extends this so-called "break-out" capacity to more than a year. In the latter years of the agreement, and something that foes of the deal will surely raise during debate, the break-out time will gradually dwindle as Iran is allowed to install more sophisticated centrifuges that can enrich uranium 20 times faster than the models it now uses. But by then the world could be a very different place. Assuming nothing intervenes to block the agreement, which seems highly unlikely, it is a major diplomatic victory for President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and the negotiators of France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia. The agreement could also bring about an era of improved relations between the U.S. and Iran after 36 years of ferocious antagonism and a 12-year stand-off over Iran's nuclear program. That stand-off was punctuated by repeated right-wing calls for air attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. Any attacks, in addition to killing large numbers of Iranian civilians, would certainly have produced a strong military response from Iran, something the proponents chose to ignore the way they always ignore blowback and the other consequences of such actions. ||||| Josh Rogin is a Bloomberg View columnist who writes about national security and foreign affairs. He has previously worked for the Daily Beast, Newsweek, Foreign Policy magazine, the Washington Post, Congressional Quarterly and Asahi Shimbun. He is a graduate of the George Washington University. The newly announced deal between Iran and six world powers is "akin to declaring war on Israel and the Sunni Arabs," and will be a huge problem for Hillary Clinton, according to GOP presidential candidate and Senator Lindsey Graham, who promised to not uphold the deal if he is elected next year. "My initial impression is that this deal is far worse than I ever dreamed it could be and will be a nightmare for the region, our national security and eventually the world at large," Graham told me in an interview early Tuesday morning, just after Iran, China, France, Russia, Britain, the U.S. and Germany confirmed they had reached terms for a historic deal to limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Graham reacted harshly to many of the details about the deal that were emerging early Tuesday, including the news that the conventional arms embargo on Iran will be largely lifted and replaced by a limitation of Iranian arms imports and exports for five years. Reports also stated early Tuesday that limitations on Iran's ballistic missile program will begin to ease after eight years. "If the initial reports regarding the details of this deal hold true, there's no way as president of the United States I would honor this deal," Graham said. "It's incredibly dangerous for our national security, and it's akin to declaring war on Sunni Arabs and Israel by the P5+1 because it ensures their primary antagonist Iran will become a nuclear power and allows them to rearm conventionally." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted Tuesday that the deal was "a historic mistake." Hillary Clinton has not yet reacted publicly; in the past she has expressed cautious optimism about the deal and said she was waiting to see the details. "Hillary Clinton's reaction to this deal is the first real test of her ability to be president and her judgment," said Graham. "If she believes it's a good idea to lift the arms embargo without first seeing a behavior change by the Iranians, then her judgment as commander in chief will be very much in question." He said President Obama put Democrats in an impossible situation: "He's pitted Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party against common sense and the security of the American people." Congress will have 60 days to review the deal, after it is submitted to them by the administration. After that, Congress will have the option of debating and passing a resolution of approval or a resolution of disapproval, or doing nothing and letting the deal stand. If Congress passes a resolution of disapproval, the president is likely to veto it, and then Congress will struggle to muster an override vote. Many Democrats have kept their powder dry, awaiting the details of the final deal. They will likely be looking toward Clinton for guidance, as she is the favorite to be the party's presidential nominee. The negotiations in Iran began while Clinton was secretary of state. "She bears some responsibility for starting the process. The only question is, will she ratify the results," said Graham. In addition to the lifting of the embargo, Graham said lawmakers in both parties will be put off by the fact that the restrictions on Iranian enrichment expire over time. "There is no chance that this deal will be approved by Congress," he said, predicting rejection by "an overwhelming super majority in both the House and the Senate." Graham also predicted that the deal would lead to an arms race in the Middle East and expanded hostilities between Shiite and Sunni Arabs all over the region. "If I had property in the Middle East, I would think about selling it after this deal." This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. To contact the author on this story: Josh Rogin at [email protected] To contact the editor on this story: Philip Gray at [email protected] ||||| VIENNA — In his opening to China more than 40 years ago, Richard M. Nixon made a huge Cold War gamble that he could forge a working relationship with a Communist country that had built a small arsenal of nuclear weapons and clearly had long-term ambitions for global power. For President Obama, the deal struck Tuesday morning with Iran represents a similar leap of faith, a bet that by defusing the country’s nuclear threat — even if just for a decade or so — he and his successors would have the time and space to restructure one of the United States’ deepest adversarial relationships. Mr. Obama will be long out of office before any reasonable assessment can be made as to whether that roll of the dice paid off. The best guess today, even among the most passionate supporters of the president’s Iran project, is that the judgment will be mixed. Little in the deal announced on Tuesday eliminates Iran’s ability to become a threshold nuclear power eventually — it just delays the day. To Mr. Obama’s many critics, including Henry A. Kissinger, the architect of the China opening, that is a fatal flaw. It does nothing, Mr. Kissinger wrote recently with another former secretary of state, George P. Shultz, to change “three and a half decades of militant hostility to the West.” ||||| The announcement of a historic deal with Iran curbing that country’s nuclear program makes it more likely that the 2016 election will be fought, at least partly, around a broad argument over the proper extent of U.S. international engagement as a means to solve the biggest future challenges we face. It also means the presidential contenders will take sides around what has been called the Obama Doctrine: The idea that we should accept the limits of American power to enable us to solve these challenges on our own, even if that entails engaging internationally in ways that carry risks in their own right. The details of the deal are listed right here. Congressional Republicans have already condemned it, while some key Senate Democrats — such as Tim Kaine of Virginia — are saying generally positive things while reserving judgment on the details. But the consensus this morning is that it will be very hard for Congress to block the deal from moving forward, at least in the short term. Because of the way Congress has structured its oversight mechanism, even if Congress disapproves of it, President Obama only needs just over one-third of one chamber to stick with his veto of that disapproval, which is very likely to happen. Some of the major GOP presidential candidates — such as Scott Walker and Marco Rubio — have already pledged to undo an agreement with Iran, and crucially, they have said they will do so regardless of whether our allies want that deal to continue. Jeb Bush also condemned the previous framework. By contrast, Hillary Clinton is likely to support the deal, though it remains to be seen how much hedging she’ll do along the way. Michael Crowley has a useful look at Clinton’s public statements on Iran, noting that she’s generally more hawkish than Obama but that she’s ultimately supportive of his diplomacy. Thus, the argument that develops around the agreement may also take shape around the virtues and risks of international engagement. And this could join other issues to feed into a broader contrast, in which Republicans are opposing international engagement on multiple fronts — including Cuba and climate change (on which we may have an accord later this year). Meanwhile, Clinton may well embrace international engagement on multiple fronts, and use this contrast to cast the GOP as too inward looking and trapped in the past to confront the challenges of the future. Peter Beinart argues provocatively that GOP opposition to the Iran deal is premised on a refusal to acknowledge the limits of American power. This puts Republicans in the position of opposing the deal mainly because there are risks associated with it, without offering any credible alternative. Obama described his international approach in similar terms in a recent interview with Thomas Friedman, who characterized the president’s position this way: America’s power may not be limitless, but it remains overwhelming, and the U.S. thus “needs to have the self-confidence to take some calculated risks to open important new possibilities.” This doctrine also applies to engagement with Cuba and to an international climate accord (we don’t know whether other countries will keep up their end of the bargain). Beinart also suggests that the American mainstream may be more sympathetic to this worldview than pundits (who tend to give the Republican position the benefit of the doubt in such situations) think. I agree. While it’s hard to predict how the specifics of the Iran deal will play politically, Democrats should not fear this broader contrast. They should lean into it. ******************************************************************* * THE IRAN DEAL, SUMMARIZED: The Wall Street Journal has a quick summary: At the heart of the agreement between Iran and the six powers — the U.S., U.K., Russia, China, Germany and France — is Tehran’s acceptance of strict limits on its nuclear activities for 10 years. These are supposed to ensure that the country remains a minimum of 12 months away from amassing enough nuclear fuel for a bomb. After the 10-year period, those constraints will ease in the subsequent five years. In exchange, the U.S., the European Union and the United Nations will lift tight international sanctions on Tehran, a move that Western diplomats say could help Iran’s economy to expand by 7% to 8% annually for years to come. Daniel Larison makes the case for the deal on these grounds: “This will limit Iran’s nuclear program more effectively than a decade of sanctions and coercive methods ever did, and it makes Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon much less likely than any other available course of action.” * OBAMA VOWS VETO IN IRAN FIGHT: The President’s statement this morning: “This deal is not built on trust. It is built on verification. Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran’s nuclear facilities…I am confident that this deal will meet the national security interests of the United States and our allies. So I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal. We do not have to accept an inevitable spiral into conflict.” Republicans will argue that the deal is folly precisely because it requires us to “trust” Iran. * OBAMA HOPES CONGRESS WILL BACK IRAN DEAL: The New York Times reports that Obama will likely get his way even if Congress disapproves of the deal, but he wants approval: Mr. Obama’s chances of ultimately prevailing are considered high. Even if the accord is voted down by one or both houses, he could veto that action, and he is likely to have the votes he would need to prevail in an effort to override the veto. But he has told aides that for an accord as important as this one — which he hopes will usher in a virtual truce with a country that has been a major American adversary for 35 years — he wants a congressional endorsement. But that would require Republicans — who have acted as if this deal is being negotiated by Obama and no one else — to endorse what they have already designated as Obama’s Capitulation To Iran. * IRAN COULD BECOME ISSUE IN SENATE RACES: National Journal reports that Democrats think they can put Republican Senators on the defensive over their expected opposition to the deal. DSCC spokesman Justin Barasky notes that the public disapproved of Tom Cotton’s letter to Iran and will see opposition to the accord as obstructionist, adding: “I think they’re the ones that are going to have to deal with the voters in a way that’s problematic.” Of course, a number of Senate Dems could oppose the deal. Notably, Congress now has 60 days to review it, which means that Senators and Members will catch an earful from voters back at home during the August recess. * CAN PELOSI SAVE IRAN DEAL? Bloomberg reports that the White House is relying on Nancy Pelosi as the firewall against Congressional disapproval of the deal. If the Senate musters 67 votes to override Obama’s veto of a Congressional vote against it, the deal still moves forward for now if more than one-third of Members of the House side with Obama. Reminder: 150 House Dems have already signed a letter backing an Iran deal in general, which means House Dems likely would sustain a veto, though that’s not assured. * LEFT GEARS UP TO DEFEND AGREEMENT: The statement on the accord just out from MoveOn: “MoveOn members are going to fight like hell to defend it and to stop opponents from dragging the U.S. into yet another costly, deadly war of choice….We call on every member of Congress to support this agreement. Persuading senators and representatives to do so will be MoveOn members’ top priority over the next 60 days.” If Congressional Democrats somehow end up helping Republicans tank the deal, you’d think there would be absolute hell to pay from the base…. * AND THERE’S BROAD SUPPORT FOR DIPLOMACY WITH IRAN: Aaron Blake reviews the recent polling and finds surprisingly broad support for diplomacy, even across party lines. This will not stop commentators from reflexively concluding that the politics of this will inveitably favor Republicans, of course. ||||| The United States and five other world powers have reached a deal with Iran that would place strict limits on Tehran’s nuclear program in return for ending sanctions on its economy, the culmination of years of delicate diplomacy pursued by President Barack Obama despite warnings the agreement could strengthen Iran’s Islamist regime and leave it dangerously close to a nuclear bomb. The historic accord, reached by Secretary of State John Kerry and his international counterparts in Vienna on Tuesday after 18 days of intense negotiations, now faces review from a hostile Republican-led Congress, opposition from every GOP presidential candidate, from Israel’s government and from Sunni Arab monarchs. The deal’s long and complex implementation process also leaves it vulnerable to unraveling. Story Continued Below Speaking from the White House Tuesday morning, Obama called the deal a victory for diplomacy that would prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and avert a possible conflict with Iran. “No deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East,” Obama said. He reaffirmed America’s commitment to Israel’s security and Gulf Arab states like Saudi Arabia, while adding that the U.S. is “open to engagement on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect.” Obama also hinted at the possibility of a larger thaw in U.S.-Iranian relations. ”It is possible to change,” Obama told Iranians, urging them to take a “different path, one of tolerance, of peaceful resolution to conflict… This deal opens an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it.” “This is the good deal that we have sought,” Kerry said in a statement from Vienna. If it succeeds, the agreement could upgrade Obama’s checkered foreign policy legacy, as well provide a crowning achievement for Kerry’s 30-year political career. Analysts call it one of the modern era’s most important arms control agreements, in a league with the 1970 international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1994 START nuclear missile treaty between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Some believe it could begin to normalize relations between Iran and the West after three decades of cold war, although Obama and Kerry have denied that is their goal, while others predict that an emboldened Iran will seek greater dominance across the Middle East. But on Tuesday the European Union’s top foreign policy official, Frederica Mogherini, called the pact “much more than a nuclear deal,” adding: “It can open a new chapter.” On Twitter, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani said that with the “unnecessary crisis resolved, new horizons emerge with a focus on shared challenges.” That will hardly please Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who tweeted: “From the initial reports we can already conclude that this agreement is a historic mistake.” According to a 159-page document posted online by Russia’s foreign ministry, which it called the final text of the deal, a U.N. resolution lifting sanctions will also express the Security Council’s “desire to build a new relationship with Iran.” The text says also that Iran has vowed that “under no circumstances” will it ever “seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” And it describes a joint commission composed of its seven parties to monitor the deal’s implementation. One issue that will draw close scrutiny from nuclear experts is Iran’s ability to research advanced nuclear technologies while its program is constrained by a deal. Iran now relies on 1970s-era centrifuges to enrich uranium, which are highly inefficient. The document posted by Russian foreign ministry says that after 8½ years Iran can begin testing up to 30 modern IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges. Analysts fear that, if Iran masters top-quality centrifuges, it might be capable of producing a bomb in a matter of months or weeks soon after the deal’s main restrictions lift in a decade. On an issue that snagged the talks in their final days, the deal will free Iran from an arms embargo after five years, Obama said Tuesday. Obama has made the deal a central plank of his foreign policy. Dating from early in the 2008 presidential campaign, he called for fresh thinking toward American adversaries like Iran. As president, he has argued that it is wiser to negotiate with a nemesis of more than three decades than risk a military confrontation over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But he has also insisted, in response to the many critics who called him desperate for a deal, that signing off on a weak agreement is not in his interest. “If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” the president said in May — a measure of just how keenly aware he is of the deal’s implications for his legacy. The deal came 18 days after Kerry arrived in Vienna for a round of talks whose initial deadline was June 30. As early July came and went, the talks bogged down in a handful of issues, including whether and how to lift a U.N. embargo on Iran’s import and export of conventional arms. Kerry, too, was accused of wanting a deal too badly, a charge his marathon session in Vienna — all of it on crutches, as he recovers from a broken leg — may have defused. The comprehensive deal fills in the details of a preliminary framework deal reached in April by the U.S. and its negotiating partners — France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia. A document said to be about 100 pages will be transmitted to Congress and made public, although some portions are expected to remain classified. Obama’s main goal has been to impose limits on Iran’s fast-advancing nuclear program to ensure that Tehran can’t acquire a nuclear bomb faster than the U.S. and its allies can act to stop it. The deal seeks to do that by reducing Iran’s capacity to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium, slowing its research and development into nuclear technology, and imposing inspections and monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities to prevent cheating. The goal is to achieve a “breakout time” — or the time it would take Iran to produce the nuclear material required for one bomb — of at least one year. That is long enough, U.S. officials believe, for the world community to take punitive action that could include airstrikes against Iranian facilities. Some elements of the deal were locked in by an April 2 political framework agreement reached in Lausanne, Switzerland. They include a commitment by Iran to reduce its number of installed centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,104, with only 5,060 of those enriching uranium for 10 years. Centrifuges spin gaseous uranium at supersonic speeds to increase its purity to levels suitable for a nuclear weapon. Iran has also agreed to modify a plutonium-fueled nuclear reactor so that its fuel cannot be reprocessed for use in a weapon. And it will allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency broad access to suspected nuclear sites, as well as cooperate with an IAEA investigation into its past activities, although many crucial details have yet to be released. The comprehensive agreement will leave many powerful critics deeply dissatisfied. Netanyahu, who sees Iran as an existential threat to his country, has said repeatedly that the deal will “pave Iran’s path to the bomb”; several Sunni Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, worry that the end of sanctions will free up tens of billions of dollars that Iran can direct to militant allies like Hezbollah and sectarian battles from Iraq to Syria to Yemen. The emerging outlines of the deal have also drawn withering fire for months from Capitol Hill, fueled by Republicans — and many Democrats — who agree with Netanyahu that it jeopardizes Israel’s security. A vote of disapproval by Congress would prevent Obama from lifting sanctions on Tehran, although administration officials believe they can maintain enough Democratic backing to sustain a presidential veto. The nuclear talks began after years of Western worry over Iran’s nuclear aims, despite Tehran’s insistence that its program was only for scientific and energy purposes. The 2002 revelation of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a plutonium reactor at Arak — sites previously undeclared to the U.N. in violation of Iran’s international commitments — badly undercut Tehran’s claims. So did the 2009 discovery of a secret, underground enrichment facility buried in a mountain at Fordow, near the holy city of Qom. In 2007, an assessment by the U.S. intelligence community found that Iran had pursued a military dimension to its nuclear program — in effect, an Iranian Manhattan Project — but ceased the work in 2003. Iran has failed to comply fully with IAEA inspectors pursuing the question, a major point of contention in the talks. The United States, which broke off diplomatic relations with Iran after the country’s 1979 Islamic revolution and capture of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, has long used sanctions and other tools to punish Iran for its behavior. In recent years the sanctions vice tightened considerably as Russia and China backed harsh U.N. measures, the U.S. Congress targeted Iran’s financial sector, and the Obama administration persuaded growing economies like India and South Korea agreed to sharply limit their consumption of Iranian oil. At the same time, after taking office Obama continued a Bush-era program targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure with cyberwar, in the form of the Stuxnet virus, which delayed Iran’s enrichment program. The U.S., U.N. and EU sanctions badly hurt Iran’s economy; inflation soared above 40 percent in 2013. U.S. sanctions threatening to punish foreign financial institutions for doing business with Iran landed a particularly painful blow. In mid-2012, after exchanging messages through the Arab state of Oman, Iranian and American officials secretly met to lay the groundwork for potential nuclear talks. This involved diplomats dispatched by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her close aide Jake Sullivan, now a top adviser to her presidential campaign. Talks became possible in June 2013, after Iranians elected as president a relatively moderate Iranian cleric, Hassan Rouhani. He offered the West a more conciliatory face than his hardline predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. With the apparent blessing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final word on all state decisions in Iran, Rouhani spoke directly via phone with Obama in September 2013, kicking off the public phase of the nuclear talks. Despite a willingness to bargain over its nuclear program, Iran has pursued an aggressive foreign policy elsewhere in the Middle East, alarming its neighbors. For example, Iran is backing Syrian President Bashar Assad against Sunni groups trying to topple him. At the same time, Iranian-trained Shiite militias are indirectly helping U.S.-backed Iraqi troops trying to defeat the Islamic State terrorist group in Iraq. And in Yemen, Iran has backed the Houthi rebels, whose positions are being bombed by Saudi Arabia with U.S. assistance. Critics of the deal fear that once Iran starts to get relief from sanctions — including access to more than 100 billion in frozen assets — it will use the money to wreak more havoc in the region. U.S. officials argue that Iran’s regional meddling costs little, and that the country is more likely to direct the influx of funds to repairing its economy and its infrastructure. At the same time, Obama has promised more military aid to Arab countries and repeatedly reaffirmed his commitment to Israel’s security. In many ways, the hardest part of the nuclear deal begins now, with its implementation. Congress will review the deal, and is likely to vote to prevent Obama from suspending sanctions on Iran — a measure Obama is sure to veto. In that scenario, the votes of a few dozen Senate Democrats could become decisive in a veto override battle. The nuclear deal will also drive the 2016 presidential campaign’s foreign policy debate. Several Republican contenders are already vowing to kill the deal if they win the White House. Follow @politico |||||Summary:

question:You are an AI assistant. You should describe the task and explain your answer. While answering a multiple choice question, first output the correct answer(s). Then explain why other answers are wrong. You might need to use additional knowledge to answer the question. In Defense of Clapton's Layla Recently, GuitarWorld magazine published a list of top 100 of the worst guitar solos, riffs and licks of all time. I am a big sucker for this sort of thing, so I swallowed the 7.95 price to purchase it, with a good expectation of what would be included. Just as literary scholars have a canon of great literature, the guitarist community has a canon of really awful guitar solos - including, for instance, Neil Young's infamous one-note Cinnamon Girl solo, anything by Van Halen, and anything played by Kurt Cobain. When I turned to the list, I suffered a cruel, horrible shock. Multi-choice problem: What is this text about? a). World b). Sports c). Business d). Science/Tech