Thursday File 1-9-2014Immigration Reform................................................................................................................................5

1NC Immigration Reform.....................................................................................................................6

U- Yes Pass- 2NC..................................................................................................................................7

U- Yes Pass- Boehner and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.......................................................................9

U- Yes Pass- Republican - Priority......................................................................................................10

U- Yes Pass- Boehner Push................................................................................................................11

U- Yes Pass- Republicans Support......................................................................................................13

U- Yes Pass- AT Tea Party...................................................................................................................14

Top Priority........................................................................................................................................15

AT Elections.......................................................................................................................................16

Delay Link..........................................................................................................................................18

Obama Pushing Immigration Reform................................................................................................19

AT No Political Capital – Immigration Reform....................................................................................20

Iran Sanctions........................................................................................................................................21

1NC Iran Sanctions.............................................................................................................................22

U- 2NC Iran Sanctions Won’t Pass.....................................................................................................23

U- Uncertain......................................................................................................................................24

Yes Floor Vote....................................................................................................................................25

Thumpers..............................................................................................................................................26

General Thumper...............................................................................................................................27

Yes Political Capital............................................................................................................................28

AT Spending Fight Thumper...............................................................................................................29

AFF ANSWERS........................................................................................................................................30

2AC Immigration Reform...................................................................................................................31

1AR- Won’t Pass................................................................................................................................33

Yes Iran Sanctions..............................................................................................................................34

2AC Tax Reform.................................................................................................................................36

2AC Unemployment Insurance..........................................................................................................37

2014 Elections- Republicans Will Win Senate....................................................................................41

Yes Spending Bills..............................................................................................................................43

Previous Thursday File...........................................................................................................................44

Immigration...............................................................................................................................................45

1NC........................................................................................................................................................46

Uniqueness............................................................................................................................................51

Geneeral............................................................................................................................................52

Obama Pushing Immigration Reform................................................................................................55

Boehner on board..............................................................................................................................56

A/T NO Political Capital......................................................................................................................58

Top Priority........................................................................................................................................59

Impacts..................................................................................................................................................60

Key to Economy.................................................................................................................................61

Prevents Russia & China war.............................................................................................................64

Prevents War:General.......................................................................................................................65

Hegemony.........................................................................................................................................66

Econ Impact – Warming.....................................................................................................................67

Affirmative.........................................................................................................................................68

Unemployment Benefits........................................................................................................................69

Uniqueness........................................................................................................................................70

Economy............................................................................................................................................72

Obama pushing UB............................................................................................................................73

Top of docket.....................................................................................................................................74

Democrats pushing UB......................................................................................................................75

A/T Unemployment low....................................................................................................................76

A/T Quo will increase jobs.................................................................................................................77

Aff Answers........................................................................................................................................78

Iran........................................................................................................................................................79

1NC........................................................................................................................................................80

Sanctions Undermine Nuke Deal...........................................................................................................84

Key to Middle East Peace......................................................................................................................85

Affirmative Answers..............................................................................................................................86

Midterms...............................................................................................................................................87

GOP will take the Senate...................................................................................................................88

GOP will keep the house....................................................................................................................89

Midterms Key to Obama’s agenda.....................................................................................................90

Executive Orders................................................................................................................................91

Affirmative Answers: General................................................................................................................92

Thumpers...........................................................................................................................................93

Previous Thursday Files.............................................................................................................................94

Negative Cards..........................................................................................................................................95

Iran Sanctions Obama Winning........................................................................................................96

Congress United................................................................................................................................98

AT: Debt Ceiling Thumper...............................................................................................................100

AT: Nominations Thumper..............................................................................................................101

Political Capital High Now...............................................................................................................102

Immigration Reform Will Pass........................................................................................................103

Affirmative Cards....................................................................................................................................105

Debt Ceiling Thumper.....................................................................................................................106

Nomination Thumper.....................................................................................................................107

Iran Sanctions Obama Losing..........................................................................................................108

Political Capital Low Now...............................................................................................................110

Thumpers........................................................................................................................................111

Immigration Reform Won’t Pass....................................................................................................112

PREVIOUS THURSDAY FILES....................................................................................................................113

Iran Cards from 12/12.........................................................................................................................114

U 1NC...............................................................................................................................................115

U 2NC...............................................................................................................................................117

AT Democrats Back from Deal........................................................................................................119

Yes House........................................................................................................................................120

Menendez IL....................................................................................................................................122

AT Obama Veto...............................................................................................................................123

AT: Johnson Shelved Decision........................................................................................................124

AT: HC Thumper..............................................................................................................................125

2NC Impact Overview.....................................................................................................................126

Turns Hegemony.............................................................................................................................131

Turns US Credibility.........................................................................................................................133

Turns Economy................................................................................................................................134

Central Asia Impact.........................................................................................................................136

General Nuclear War Impact..........................................................................................................137

Middle East War Module................................................................................................................138

Syria Module...................................................................................................................................140

Impacts: AT: Iran will be deterred................................................................................................143

AT: Can’t Trust Rouhani.................................................................................................................144

AT: Deal Fails...................................................................................................................................145

AT: Sanctions Won’t Hurt Deal.......................................................................................................146

Aff- Iran Sanctions...............................................................................................................................149

Immigration Reform

1NC Immigration Reform

Immigration reform will pass now but Obama’s political capital is keyDaily Tribune, 1-8 (There's new hope Congress will pass immigration reform this year, http://www.dailytribune.com/government-and-politics/20140108/theres-new-hope-congress-will-pass-immigration-reform-this-year)His agenda tattered by last year’s confrontations and missteps, President Barack Obama begins 2014 clinging to the hope of winning a lasting legislative achievement: an overhaul of immigration laws.It will require a deft and careful use of his powers, combining a public campaign in the face of protests over his administration’s record number of deportations with quiet, behind-the-scenes outreach to Congress, something seen by lawmakers and immigration advocates as a major White House weakness.In recent weeks, both Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, have sent signals that raised expectations among overhaul supporters that 2014 could still yield the first comprehensive change in immigration laws in nearly three decades. If successful, it would fulfill an Obama promise many Latinos say is long overdue.The Senate last year passed a comprehensive, bipartisan bill that addressed border security, provided enforcement measures and offered a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally. House leaders, pressed by tea party conservatives, demanded a more limited and piecemeal approach.Indicating a possible opening, Obama has stopped insisting the House pass the Senate version. And two days after calling Boehner to wish him happy birthday in November, Obama made it clear he could accept the House’s bill-by-bill approach, with one caveat: In the end, “we’re going to have to do it all.”Boehner, for his part, in December hired Rebecca Tallent, a former top aide to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and most recently the director of a bipartisan think tank’s immigration task force. Even opponents of a broad immigration overhaul saw Tallent’s selection as a sign legislation had suddenly become more likely. Boehner also fed speculation he would ignore tea party pressure, bluntly brushing back their criticism of December’s modest budget agreement.“We believe immigration reform is going to pass,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday. “It’s going to pass, you know, and it’s up to the House to decide when. But it’s going to happen.”Republican pollster David Winston, who regularly consults with the House leadership, said the task ahead for both sides is to distinguish the key issues they must have in the legislation from those that are merely preferences.“The question is what are the core things that Republicans can’t move away from, what are the core things that Democrats can’t walk away from,” he said. “That’s part of the process of going back and forth.”If successful, an immigration compromise could restore some luster to Obama’s agenda, tarnished in 2013 by failures on gun legislation, bipartisan pushback on his efforts to take military action against Syria and the disastrous enrollment start for his health care law.

U- Yes Pass- 2NC

Immigration reform will pass now but Obama needs political capital to court Congress to ensure passage. Recent administration support for piecemeal approach, Boehner’s indication of making immigration a top priority and brushing off the Tea Party ensures passage. That’s Daily Tribune.

Deal will be struck around legalization and key filing deadlines will provide election coverage for RepublicansDaily Tribune, 1-8 (There's new hope Congress will pass immigration reform this year, http://www.dailytribune.com/government-and-politics/20140108/theres-new-hope-congress-will-pass-immigration-reform-this-year)But some advocates of reform are beginning to rally around an idea to grant immigrants legal status in the U.S. and leave the question of citizenship out of the legislation. In other words, they can work, but not vote.“I don’t think this is a good idea because citizenship is important, but I don’t think it is a big deal breaker either,” Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a leading congressional advocate for overhauling U.S. immigration law, said in a speech last month. “Right now we have to stop the deportations that are breaking up families. And if we do not get citizenship this year, we will be back next year and the year after that.”While strong majorities of Hispanics continue to back a pathway to citizenship, a Pew Research Center poll last month found that being able to live and work in the U.S. legally without the threat of deportation was more important to Latinos by 55 percent to 35 percent.“Is the sticking point going to be we have to have immediate voting privileges for those who came here illegally?,” Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican who voted against the Senate immigration bill, said Sunday on ABC. “If the Democrats are willing to come halfway , I think we can pass something, some meaningful reform that would help the 11 million who are here.”A House Republican retreat later this month could help GOP leaders devise a strategy. Some Republicans and Democrats say Boehner could wait until after the filing deadlines for 2014 primary elections, thus protecting some incumbents from tea party or other conservative challenges. That would mean no meaningful votes until after April .

Top priority for Republican- Obama’s push is keyDaily News, 1-6 (Boehner cracks open the door, http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/boehner-cracks-open-door-article-1.1565890)Boehner cracks open the door Good news: Immigration reform could be back on Congress' agendaPush, and keep pushing.Comes word from permanently paralyzed Washington that House Speaker John Boehner is said to be bucking Tea Party hardliners and moving immigration reform to the front of the GOP’s agenda this year. Keep your fingers crossed.The right thing to do — for the economy and for basic human decency — would be to rescue the comprehensive reform bill that passed the Senate and failed in the House last year. This

being the nation’s capital, that is probably off the table. Which makes Boehner’s apparent willingness to at least play small ball the next best thing. May his commitment be sincere and sustained.

Pro-business, CBO, elections and recent Boehner hire show immigration supportWashington Times, 1-5 (Schumer: Immigration reform possible in 2014 because of Boehner’s tea party break, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/5/schumer-immigration-reform-possible-2014-because-b/)Sen. Charles E. Schumer , New York Democrat, said he thinks Congress will reform immigration in 2014 because of Speaker John A. Boehner ’s break with the tea party during the budget debate . “For the first time, Speaker Boehner said he won’t let the minority of his caucus — the tea party minority — run the show,” Mr. Schumer said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”Mr. Boehner, Ohio Republican, criticized tea party members of his caucus as well as outside conservative organizations who came out against the budget deal in December before it was even finalized. He also hired an immigration expert to be his assistant last month, which many have said is a good sign Mr. Boehner is ready to open the conversation on immigration reform. Mr. Schumer pointed out that some conservative parts of the Republican Party, like businesses, want immigration reform and that the Congressional Budget Office has said it would improve the economy.As an election year, Republicans will also be aware that passing immigration reform could improve their chances of coming out ahead in November.“The Republican leadership realizes if we don’t do immigration and get immigration reform done, it hurts them politically,” Mr. Schumer said.

RNC wants it off the table- business and ag lobby support as wellAZ Central, 1-2 (Immigration reform still hinges on Boehner, http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20140101boehner-reform-hinges.html)So far, Boehner and other House GOP leaders have not said how they will deal with the contentious issue of a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Some House Republicans have said they could support such a provision if it were limited to so-called “dreamers,” immigrants brought here by their parents when they were minors. Whether such a pared-down immigration proposal could pass the Senate is far from certain. And whether such a measure would help the GOP with Hispanic voters is also unclear. Roy Beck, CEO and founder of NumbersUSA, which opposes giving citizenship to undocumented immigrants, said Boehner is pushing immigration reform at the behest of deep-pocketed business donors. “He wants it, Number 1, to give the tech contributors what they want on tech visas and, Number 2, to give the ag lobbyists what they want on farmworker visas,” Beck said. “He also is heavily influenced by the Republican National Committee consultants who just want to get the issue off the table.”

U- Yes Pass- Boehner and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Boehner’s and U.S. Chamber of Commerce announcement is a game changerNewsmax, 1-8 (Boehner, Cantor: Immigration Reform a Priority for 2014,http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-boehner-eric-cantor-republicans-law/2014/01/08/id/545986)Meanwhile, Daniel Horowitz, policy director for the conservative Madison Project and a contributing editor for RedState.com, said in an op-ed piece for the site that the announcement was a "coordinated effort" by Boehner and Cantor to issue their call at the same time U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue was making his own call for amnesty. "We're determined to make 2014 the year that immigration reform is finally enacted," Donohue said in his 2014 State of American Business address, reports CNN. "The chamber will pull out all the stops – through grassroots lobbying, communications, politics, and partnerships with unions, faith organization, law enforcement and other – to get it done." Further, Donohue said, he disagrees with the belief that immigration reform cannot pass the House in 2014 because it's an important election year. "We hope to turn that assumption on its ear," he said. "It's based on a simple theory: if you can't make them see the light, then at least make them feel some heat."

Chamber of Commerce supportWashington Post, 1-8 (“U.S. Chamber to ‘pull out all stops’ to pass immigration reform,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/us-chamber-to-pull-out-all-stops-to-pass-immigration-reform/2014/01/08/ce7f899c-7883-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html)The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will “pull out all stops” to push immigration reform through Congress this year, the trade association’s president and chief executive said Wednesday during the Chamber’s annual State of American Business address in Washington.“We’re determined to make 2014 the year that immigration reform is finally enacted,” Thomas Donohue said. “The Chamber will pull out all the stops — through grassroots lobbying, communications, politics and partnerships with unions, faith organizations, law enforcement and others — to get it done.”Donohue, however, did not offer specifics about provisions or bills, speaking generally about the importance of immigration in encouraging innovation in the U.S. economy.Donohue also pushed for tax and entitlement reform, expanding trade agreements with Asia and Europe, increasing domestic energy production, and improving the nation’s education system that he said would ultimately help the economy by better training the future workforce.Donohue’s comments came as House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was telling House Republicans that the GOP leadership would soon release an outline of its position on immigration reform.

U- Yes Pass- Republican - Priority

Republicans are now making it a priorityNewsmax, 1-8 (Boehner, Cantor: Immigration Reform a Priority for 2014,http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-boehner-eric-cantor-republicans-law/2014/01/08/id/545986)Boehner, Cantor: Immigration Reform a Priority for 2014 , House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor want to overhaul the immigration system in 2014, discussing a rewrite among other priority topics with fellow Republican lawmakers in a closed meeting Wednesday.Arizona Republican Rep. Matt Salmon told The Wall Street Journal after the meeting that Boehner informed the lawmakers that "'this is an issue we have to deal with, and I continue to believe that.'"Republicans have long sought immigration change as a gradual process, not the sweeping "Gang of Eight" bipartisan bill passed by the Senate last year.

U- Yes Pass- Boehner Push

Boehner is coordinating an immigration policyLA Times, 1-8 (House GOP writing 'principles' for immigration reform, http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-house-gop-principles-immigration-reform-20140108,0,7778446.story#axzz2prNTUndl)House speaker John A. Boehner told rank-and-file Republicans that his leadership team was drafting “principles” for overhauling immigration laws that will be presented in coming weeks.Boehner made the remarks Wednesday during the first private meeting of House Republicans in the new year. House Republicans have struggled to respond to the Senate's immigration bill that passed in June, which would create a path to citizenship for 11 million immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally. Boehner refused to bring the Senate bill up for a vote in the House last year and instead said the House should consider a series of narrower measures."We are working on a standards or principles document," Boehner said, according to a person in the room granted anonymity to discuss the private session. The document is being drafted by Boehner, his leadership team, including House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), as well as other members interested in the issue. House Republican leaders believe that the GOP needs to support an immigration overhaul to woo Latino voters in advance of the 2016 presidential election.For several months, Boehner has said he wants to take a “step-by-step” approach to changing immigration laws. This would mean passing a raft of separate bills that would boost the number of visas for high-tech workers, fast-track legalization for farm workers in the country illegally and allow immigrants who came to the country illegally as children to apply for citizenship, among other provisions.The small team of GOP members and staff has been working to draft a statement of basic principles on immigration policy for several weeks. The effort is being coordinated by Rebecca Tallent, former immigration advisor to Arizona Sen. John McCain and a veteran of the previous effort to pass immigration reform during the second term of President George W. Bush. Boehner hired Tallent in December.

Pressure is bringing Boehner on boardAZ Central, 1-2 (Immigration reform still hinges on Boehner, http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20140101boehner-reform-hinges.html)With pressure mounting on House Speaker John Boehner to tackle the politically and emotionally charged issue of immigration reform, activists on both sides of the debate are gearing up for a major legislative clash in 2014.Boehner said last year that he was committed to pushing immigration legislation through the House. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, declined to set a timeline, but in a move that energized many pro-reform activists, he recently hired a new, well-regarded legislative aide to deal with the issue.“This is a very important issue,” Boehner said at a Nov.21 news conference. “There are a lot of

private conversations under way to try to figure out how do we best move on a common-sense, step-by-step basis to address this.”

Boehner will push- let him capture his legacy and politically and emotionally charged issueAZ Central, 1-2 (Immigration reform still hinges on Boehner, http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20140101boehner-reform-hinges.html)But experts also say the issue presents Boehner with an opportunity to shape the future of the Republican Party — as well as his own legacy.If Boehner helped craft a compromise on immigration, it would give him a prominent role in the GOP’s efforts to woo Hispanic voters, one of the fastest-growing segments of the electorate, said Clarissa Martinez De Castro, director of immigration and national campaigns at the National Council of La Raza, the largest Hispanic civil-rights organization in the United States.Latinos voted for President Barack Obama over GOP nominee Mitt Romney by 71percent to 27percent, according to data from the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. “(Republicans) would be mending fences to start building a stronger relationship with the Latino community in the mid- and long term,” Martinez De Castro said. And Boehner “would be able to say that he took on a difficult problem that is hurting children and families and stepped up and created a solution.”There’s no question that immigration strikes a more personal, emotional chord with many voters than the fiscal fights that have dominated Boehner’s speakership so far. Boehner has gotten a taste of that himself.Pro-reform activists have organized prayer vigils and caroling outside Boehner’s Capitol Hill office. He’s been accused in radio ads of helping to deport thousands of children. And two immigrant teenagers recently confronted him while he was eating breakfast at his favorite Washington diner to tell him what it was like to live with the threat of their parents’ possible deportation because of the House GOP’s refusal to pass immigration reform.“I’m trying to find a way to get this thing done,” he told them. “It’s, you know, not easy.” 

Asked at a news conference recently if Republicans were losing the “moral argument” on immigration reform, Boehner sidestepped the question but pledged to push for a “common sense” overhaul of the nation’s immigration system. And he has hired Rebecca Tallent, a former aide to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an immigration leader, to help him accomplish that.“I think it’s an excellent sign,” McCain said of Boehner’s decision to hire Tallent. “She is one of the foremost experts on immigration.”The Senate passed a sweeping immigration bill in June that would double the number of Border Patrol agents, increase the number of employer-based visas and require companies to use a federal database to verify that workers are legally eligible to work in the U.S. It would also pave the way for the estimated 11million unauthorized immigrants currently living in the U.S. to become American citizens if they met certain requirements.

Boehner is committed to immigration reformAZ Central, 1-2 (Immigration reform still hinges on Boehner, http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20140101boehner-reform-hinges.html)

Frank Sharry, executive director and founder of America’s Voice, an immigrant-rights group that supports the bipartisan Senate bill, said that strategy would be a “big mistake” for Boehner. Sharry believes Boehner genuinely wants to pass a compromise bill. “If (Republicans) continue to alienate the fastest-growing group of new voters, they’re going to devolve into a regional minority party that can’t compete for national office,” Sharry said. “I think the speaker wants to save the GOP from extinction.”

U- Yes Pass- Republicans Support

Republicans are in sync with the House GOP planWashington Post, 1-8 (Boehner says GOP will soon outline immigration position, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/01/08/boehner-says-gop-will-soon-outline-immigration-position/)Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told House Republicans on Wednesday morning that the GOP leadership would soon release an outline of the conference’s position on immigration reform, signaling his intent to address an issue that has often caused controversy within his party.Several House Republicans told The Washington Post that Boehner did not specify the details of the framework, and said Boehner’s comments were brief. He also did not discuss a specific timeline for its release.Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), speaking with reporters, described the announcement as part of Boehner’s wide-ranging announcement of his 2014 agenda.“John said that he’s going to come out with principles [on immigration],” King said. “He didn’t say when, but I got the impression that it’d be sooner rather than later.”Leadership aides say the document will focus on “step by step” reforms and border security. House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and other Republicans who have been deeply involved in immigration policy for the past year are said to be the chief authors.“There was no talk, at all, about going to conference with the Senate’s comprehensive bill,” said one House leadership aide. “The speaker and the conference are focused on commonsense reforms and that will be laid out in the principles.”Boehner alerted members about his plans at a closed-door GOP conference meeting at the Capitol. His remarks on immigration came at the beginning of the session, which was the first large gathering of House Republicans since members returned from the winter recess.Leaving the meeting, most House conservatives, who have at times been at odds with Boehner and the leadership, did not seem worried about the House GOP’s plan to publish a position paper on immigration reform. As they listened to Boehner, they said, they did not get the sense that the speaker would surprise them and break from his long-held position.“Yes,” said conservative Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), when asked whether he and the speaker are in sync on how to move forward. “We want to focus on securing our border and strengthening our visa program. That’s our first priority.”

U- Yes Pass- AT Tea Party

Room for compromise- Boehner will break from Tea PartyMoffett, 1-6 (Schumer: House Speaker Boehner May Move on Immigration Reform, http://immigration.about.com/b/2014/01/06/schumer-house-speaker-boehner-may-move-on-reform-bill.htm)Immigration reform optimists are hoping that U.S. House Speaker John Boehner may be willing to break ranks with the Tea Party as Congress gets back from its holiday break. The right wing of Boehner's Republican party has opposed comprehensive immigration reformand threatened to go after the seats of members who do. But Sunday, on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he believes Boehner is ready to ignore the Tea Party and work with Democrats on a reform bill."For the first time, Speaker Boehner said he won't let the minority of his caucus -- the Tea Party minority -- run the show," Schumer said on ABC. "The Republican leadership realizes that if we don't do immigration and get immigration reform done, it hurts them politically."The Hispanic and immigrant vote cost Republicans dearly in the 2012 presidential election and they do have political motivations for reaching out to those communities. Heightened border control and more visas for skilled immigrants could be two issues that bring more Republicans into reform cause.

Top Priority

Immigration reform top of the agenda- this evidence assumes a crowded docketFox News Latino, 12-27 (President Obama Eyes Immigration Reform As A Top Priority For 2014, http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/12/27/president-obama-eyes-immigration-reform-as-top-priority-for-2014/)The last vestiges of 2013's political wrangling officially behind him, President Barack Obama is setting his sights on the coming year, when a number of unfinished tasks will increasingly compete for attention with the 2014 midterm elections.High on the agenda for the start of the year is a renewed push on immigration. Bipartisan consensus about the need for action on immigration in the wake of the 2012 presidential election gave way in 2013 to opposition from conservative House Republicans.U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has started offering subtle signs he'll put more weight behind the issue despite continued resistance from the tea party.

Immigration vote next monthsPolitico, 1-7 (Immigration reform’s narrow window for survival, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/comprehensive-immigration-reform-congress-senate-house-2014-101612.html)House Republican leaders have said publicly that they still want to take up immigration reform but have not committed to a specific time frame for bringing bills up for a vote. In a memo sent to members earlier this month, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) listed immigration among several issues that “may be brought to the floor over the next few months.”

Immigration reform top of his prioritiesCNN, 1-8 (Chamber to 'pull out all the stops' to pass immigration reform in 2014, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/08/chamber-to-pull-out-all-the-stops-to-pass-immigration-reform-in-2014/)The president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce vowed Wednesday that 2014 will be the year his organization pulls "out all of the stops" to pass immigration reform, pledging that the Chamber will turn the 2014 midterm elections "into a motivation for change.""We're determined to make 2014 the year that immigration reform is finally enacted," Donohue said at his 2014 State of American Business address. "The Chamber will pull out all the stops – through grassroots lobbying, communications, politics and partnerships with unions, faith organization, law enforcement and other – to get it done."Donohue refuted the idea that immigration reform would not pass in 2014, a midterm election year when very little, if anything, gets done on Capitol Hill."We hope to turn that assumption on its ear," he said. "It's based on a simple theory: If you can't make them see the light, then at least make them feel some heat."Immigration reform, despite passing the Senate in June and being named one of President Barack Obama's top priorities for his second term, has seen very little movement in the House of Representatives.

Late last year, House Speaker Boehner insisted that while immigration reform was "absolutely not" dead, he had "no intention" of negotiating with the Democratic-led Senate over its comprehensive immigration proposal.Many Republicans in Congress who oppose the Senate plan – which includes an eventual pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States – have said they want to deal with immigration reform through a number of smaller bills, not one larger piece of legislation. Boehner has said he backs that approach.

AT Elections

Chamber of Commerce will provide cover for electionsCNN, 1-8 (Chamber to 'pull out all the stops' to pass immigration reform in 2014, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/08/chamber-to-pull-out-all-the-stops-to-pass-immigration-reform-in-2014/)Donohue's remarks highlight how the Chamber of Commerce plans to be an aggressive player in the 2014 midterm elections and how immigration reform is set to be at the center of those plans.A source with knowledge of the Chamber's election plans told CNN that the group is set to spend "at least $50 million" in the 2014 midterms. The group has already spent money in four midterms races, according to the source: defending House Republican Mike Simpson of Idaho, supporting Shelly Moore Capito in West Virginia's Senate race, backing Evan Jenkins, a Democrat-turned-Republican challenging Democrat Nick Rahall in West Virginia, and supporting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, who is facing a tea party challenger.The source said the group will "spend early to help set the terms of the debate." In his speech, Donohue said the group will be active in at least half a dozen races and "will support candidates who want to work within the legislative process to solve the nation's problems."The Chamber, which has long been reliably Republican, played a major role in a 2013 special election in Alabama, helping Republican Bradley Byrne, a former state senator, defeat businessman Dean Young, a tea party backed candidate.After the speech, at a press conference with reporters, Donohue said "thank God" that Bryne won in Alabama.Donohue said that the Chamber was primarily against candidates who plan to come to Washington and "burn down the town," not specifically against tea party backed lawmakers.

Primary deadlines provides a window of opportunityPolitico, 1-7 (Immigration reform’s narrow window for survival, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/comprehensive-immigration-reform-congress-senate-house-2014-101612.html)Immigration reform backers see a narrow window in late spring to push a sweeping overhaul through the House — a goal that eluded them in 2013.The politics of immigration in the Republican-controlled chamber is still tough — and might be impossible — with many lawmakers opposed to any measure that could be seen as providing amnesty to millions of immigrants living in the United States illegally.But proponents of an immigration rewrite on and off Capitol Hill hope the tension will ease once Republicans get past primary season and don’t have to worry about challenges to their conservative credentials. “For many members, they’d be more comfortable when their primaries are over ,” said California Rep. Darrell Issa, an influential Republican who has favored immigration reform.Alfonso Aguilar, the executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, said waiting out the primaries makes “perfect sense” — although he’s not convinced that the GOP base is as riled up over immigration as it is over other issues such as Obamacare.

“However, perception is reality, so you have members that are concerned, and the perception is out there that our base does not like this,” Aguilar said.Jeremy Robbins, the executive director of the Partnership for a New American Economy — the pro-reform group with ties to former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg — said reform “certainly gets easier” after the primaries pass. “I think there are multiple viable windows … and that makes us optimistic,” Robbins said, adding that primary deadlines are a “big factor.”“We are planning all of our organizing around these windows,” he said.The Democratic-controlled Senate passed a broad immigration overhaul last June, but the effort stalled in the House, where Republicans are pursuing a piecemeal strategy of individual bills instead of one comprehensive piece of legislation.House Republican leaders have said publicly that they still want to take up immigration reform but have not committed to a specific time frame for bringing bills up for a vote. In a memo sent to members earlier this month, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) listed immigration among several issues that “may be brought to the floor over the next few months.”

Delay Link

Tight window of opportunity for immigration reformPolitico, 1-7 (Immigration reform’s narrow window for survival, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/comprehensive-immigration-reform-congress-senate-house-2014-101612.html)Immigration reform backers see a narrow window in late spring to push a sweeping overhaul through the House — a goal that eluded them in 2013.The politics of immigration in the Republican-controlled chamber is still tough — and might be impossible — with many lawmakers opposed to any measure that could be seen as providing amnesty to millions of immigrants living in the United States illegally.But proponents of an immigration rewrite on and off Capitol Hill hope the tension will ease once Republicans get past primary season and don’t have to worry about challenges to their conservative credentials. “For many members, they’d be more comfortable when their primaries are over,” said California Rep. Darrell Issa, an influential Republican who has favored immigration reform.Alfonso Aguilar, the executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, said waiting out the primaries makes “perfect sense” — although he’s not convinced that the GOP base is as riled up over immigration as it is over other issues such as Obamacare.“However, perception is reality, so you have members that are concerned, and the perception is out there that our base does not like this,” Aguilar said.

Obama Pushing Immigration Reform

Obama is making immigration reform his top priorityMiller 12/25 [Emily, senior editor, Washington Times, "Miller: Obama's dangerous immigration reform agenda and amnesty" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/25/obamas-immigration-reform-agenda-may-lead-amnesty/?page=allBefore leaving on his 17-day vacation in Hawaii, President Obama declared that one of his top priorities for 2014 will be immigration reform, with amnesty. He knows that congressional Republicans feel pressure to do something to woo Hispanic voters.Mr. Obama will leverage those political forces for the midterm elections, even though he doesn’t even enforce the existing immigration laws.Mr. Obama held a rare press conference Friday before hopping on Air Force One for the direct flight to Honolulu. It was in an attempt to buck up his plummeting poll numbers after a year of failures.“Immigration reform, probably the biggest thing that I wanted to get done this year, we saw progress. It passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote,” he asserted.

AT No Political Capital – Immigration Reform

Obama still has political capital, but time is running out. He can use the State of the Union as a jumpstart to pass immigration reformHohmann 1/1 [James, Politico, "As D.C. turns: 14 dates to watch in 2014" http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/2014-14-dates-to-watch-101627.html?hp=f3

Obama becomes more of a lame duck with each annual update to Congress, and, faced with strong Republican opposition, it’s likely many of the priorities he outlines will go nowhere. Still, the State of the Union is an important platform for any president, and this is a chance for Obama to convey how much of his diminishing political capital he will invest in pursuing immigration reform, making the health care law work and other priorities.

Budget deal gives Obama enough political capital to pass immigration reformPolitical Wire 12-13 ["Budget vote gives immigration reform advocates hope" http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/12/13/budget_vote_gives_immigration_reform_advocates_hope.html

The Hill: "Both sides in the immigration debate are watching Speaker John Boehner closely after Thursday evening's emphatic House vote in favor of a bipartisan budget deal. The calculus is clear in the minds of immigration-reform advocates. They believe that Boehner wants to get some kind of deal done on immigration, and any development that replenishes his political capital helps their cause."

Iran Sanctions

1NC Iran Sanctions

Obama’s political capital is key to ensuring Congress doesn’t receive a veto-proof majorityLobe, 12-27 (Iran sanctions bill: Big test of Israel lobby power, http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=World&article=8046)Their hope now is to pass it – either as a free-standing measure or as an amendment to another must-pass bill after Congress reconvenes Jan. 6.To highlight its bipartisan support, the two sponsors gathered a dozen other senators from each party to co-sponsor it.Republicans, many of whom reflexively oppose President Barack Obama’s positions on any issue and whose core constituencies include Christian Zionists, are almost certain to support the bill by an overwhelming margin. If the bill gets to the floor, the main battle will thus take place within the Democratic majority.The latter find themselves torn between, on the one hand, their loyalty to Obama and their fear that new sanctions will indeed derail negotiations and thus make war more likely, and, on the other, their general antipathy for Iran and the influence exerted by AIPAC and associated groups as a result of the questionable perception that Israel’s security is uppermost in the minds of Jewish voters and campaign contributors (who, by some estimates, provide as much as 40 percent of political donations to Democrats in national campaigns).The administration clearly hopes the Democratic leadership will prevent the bill from coming to a vote, but, if it does, persuading most of the Democrats who have already endorsed the bill to change their minds will be an uphill fight. If the bill passes, the administration will have to muster 34 senators of the 100 senators to sustain a veto – a difficult but not impossible task, according to Congressional sources.That battle has already been joined. Against the 13 Democratic senators who signed onto the Kirk-Menendez bill, 10 Democratic Senate committee chairs urged Majority Leader Harry Reid, who controls the upper chamber’s calendar, to forestall any new sanctions legislation.“As negotiations are ongoing, we believe that new sanctions would play into the hands of those in Iran who are most eager to see negotiations fail,” wrote the 10, who included the chairs of the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin, respectively. They also noted that a new intelligence community assessment had concluded that “new sanctions would undermine the prospects for a successful comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran.”Their letter was followed by the veto threat by White House spokesman Jay Carney and a strong denunciation of the bill by State Department spokesperson Marie Harf. She accused the sponsors of “directly contradict[ing] the administration work. …If Congress passes this bill, …it would be proactively taking an action that would undermine American diplomacy and make peaceful resolution to this issue less possible.”

U- 2NC Iran Sanctions Won’t Pass

Won’t pass- administration is courting against veto-proof votesPressTV, 1-9 (Anti-Iran sanctions not going to pass: Franklin Lamb, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/07/344315/antiiran-sanctions-not-going-to-pass/)Many of these 48 and certainly the leaders are essentially paid and bought agents of Israel. Increasingly the public is becoming aware of this. They know they are not going to succeed at this because they are paid for and it is expected of them, they are going along with this but it is an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment to all America’s allies that we have such a right-wing neocon anti-Arab anti-Muslim Pro-Zionist click in Congress.So I think it is going to be that the voters are going to have to decide if this is the kind of Congressmen that they want representing us even when the intelligence community, the White House, the Pentagon, our allies are all saying 'do not do sanctions right now.' That is explosive, things are delicate, let diplomacy work. These fellows do not want diplomacy to work. They want war and I do not think that is an exaggeration....They take their instructions from you know these conglomerate of something like 52 Zionist organizations, all putting Israel ahead of our country. So it is an embarrassment.It is not going to pass. They need 12 more vote apparently to get veto-proof, 60 to prevent closure. I do not think Harry Reid, he may not bring them to the floor but in any case the President is going to veto it and the President is going to have the support of the American people of both parties I believe, both political parties and our allies.

U- Uncertain

Uncertain if it will have the votes- uniqueness is uncertainGardner, 1-07 (Iran sanctions bill opposed by Obama gains Senate backers, http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28897:iran-sanctions-bill-opposed-by-obama-gains-senate-backers&catid=8&Itemid=124)While the bill has gained support, it remains uncertain if backers can put together the two-thirds majority in the Senate needed to override a veto by President Barack Obama.The Obama administration has insisted the bill would damage delicate talks being held between Iran and world powers over the nuclear program, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif has said a new sanctions law would kill the interim agreement.While senior Democrats in the Senate like Menendez, from New Jersey, and Charles Schumer, from New York, support the new sanctions, there is a strong bloc of opposition in the party. Ten Democratic senators, all leaders of committees, sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last month expressing their opposition to the bill.A bipartisan group of nine senior foreign policy experts urged Menendez and Kirk not to pass the new sanctions, saying the penalties could potentially move the United States closer to war.

Yes Floor Vote

Floor vote is fully expectedThe Jerusalem Post, 1-7 (Fifty US senators line up behind new Iran sanctions bill, http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Fifty-senators-line-up-behind-new-Iran-sanctions-bill-337397)One senior Senate aide told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday that a vote is "fully expected" on the measure, despite suggestions from the White House that the bill would not reach the floor. "We don't think this action is necessary," White House press secretary Jay Carney said on December 19. "We don't think it will be enacted. If it were enacted, the president would veto it.”But another aide familiar with the bill thought a path forward was possible between Senate leadership—including Menendez and senators Charles Schumer and Mark Kirk, who co-authored the bill—and the White House."Rhetoric aside, everyone can get something here," the aide told the Post. "The administration gets up to a year of flexibility to negotiate, Iran gets its limited sanctions relief and Congress gets the insurance policy we've been seeking." In the House of Representatives, Republican leadership scheduled floor time for Iran legislation this month. Democratic whip Steny Hoyer and Republican majority leader Eric Cantor have jointly written a resolution framed in support of the Senate measure.

Thumpers

General Thumper

Spending fights, Farm Bill and IranWeber, 1-5 (Hill Democrats, Republicans set 2014 agendas with midterm elections in mind, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/05/hill-democrats-and-republicans-set-2014-agendas-with-midterm-elections-in-mind/)Lawmakers also face a Jan. 15 deadline to agree on a spending bill to keep the government running and avoid a partial shutdown that roiled Congress last fall. Passage of legislation in December scaling back the automatic, across-the-board cuts gave the House and Senate Appropriations Committees time to draft a massive, trillion-dollar-plus measure to run the government through September.A short-term measure is likely this month just to let the government continue operating.The House and Senate spent a chunk of last year wrangling over renewing the nation's farm bill after passing competing versions of the five-year, roughly $500 billion measure. In dispute are crop subsidies and how deeply to cut the $80 billion-a-year food stamp program, with the House slashing $4 billion and the Senate $400 million annually.Several other contentious issues also loom in the near term.Twenty-six senators have signed on to a new Iran sanctions bill that Obama opposes while his administration negotiates with the Iranian government over its nuclear program. Proponents of the legislation are seeking to gain the support of further senators when Congress reconvenes, with the hope of a full Senate vote this month.Although the issue may not be an immediate legislative priority for returning lawmakers, it could become a major point of discussion as advocates and opponents of fresh penalties make their cases.Reid spared the administration a vote in December, but this month he may not be able to hold off proponents of tough sanctions.

Multiple controversies and fights for Obama- midterms, NSA, minimum wageAFP, 1-9 (“With ambitions trimmed, Obama on dogged comeback trail” - See more at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/with-ambitions-trimmed-obama-on-dogged-comeback-trail/article1-1170754.aspx#sthash.rLVqqopC.dpuf)Obama will formally lay out plans for the year, shaped into a narrative of fighting for the middle class, in his State of the Union address on January 28.The speech will also include a push for a raising of the US federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour that will likely prove popular but may be politically impossible to implement.Before then, he will unveil proposed reforms to National Security Agency spying programs in the wake of the revelations by fugitive intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.White House aides are daring to hope the worst failures of the Obamacare website may be over -- and that the president's signature achievement beds down more smoothly.Not only is the law crucial to Obama's legacy, its problems are a millstone around the neck of vulnerable Democrats in November's   elections . Republicans need only six seats to capture the Senate and have a better than even chance of a result that would consign Obama in his final two years in office to a uniformly hostile Congress.

While Obama's political aides -- including new addition, respected Clinton era veteran John Podesta -- are preoccupied with domestic troubles, international crises also stalk the White House.A widening sectarian war and a resurgence of Al-Qaeda inspired groups in the Middle East, has Obama's regional policy under sharp scrutiny.Obama also faces a tough sell in Congress for any final deal he can reach with Iran on its nuclear program.And rising territorial tensions in Asia -- which Obama will visit in April, also worry his foreign policy team.

Yes Political Capital

Obama’s recharged into 2014- victory in unemployment benefits give him short term winAFP, 1-9 (“With ambitions trimmed, Obama on dogged comeback trail” - See more at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/with-ambitions-trimmed-obama-on-dogged-comeback-trail/article1-1170754.aspx#sthash.rLVqqopC.dpuf)With soaring ambitions trimmed, the White House is charting a dogged course to repair President Barack Obama's popularity and to limit a natural waning of his political powers. Obama endured a brutal 2013 -- which crushed the promise of much of his second White House term and pitched hisapproval ratings to 40% or below.For once, his Hawaii Christmas vacation was uninterrupted by crises at home or abroad, and the president and his stuff -- running on empty in December -- were able to recharge.Several new faces have also joined his famously insular White House crew, as the reenergized president tries to fashion a rebound in frigid Washington.He took the stage Tuesday in his first public appearance of the New Year, demanding an extension to long-term unemployment benefits, which lapsed for 1.3 million Americans when Congress left town for Christmas without acting.The event repositioned Obama as the warrior for the struggling middle classes -- and Republicans as their hard hearted enemy -- a tableau that swept him to reelection in 2012."When times get tough, we are not a people who say, you're on your own," Obama said."We're a people who believe that we're all in it together. And we know, 'there but for the grace of God go I.'"It was perhaps the opening shot of this year's mid-term elections race in which a third of the Senate, and all of the House of Representatives will be up for grabs.His words also played into a growing theme in American politics -- the struggles of many people to make ends meet despite a quickening but uneven economic recovery.Several Republican lawmakers, including possible presidential hopefuls Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio are expected to make speeches and unveil initiatives on poverty reduction in coming weeks.The White House was Tuesday cheered by an early symbolic victory, after six Republican senators joined Democrats in the Senate to advance the move to extend unemployment benefits to a final vote.

AT Spending Fight Thumper

Spending fights won’t cost major fights- basically doneThe Hill, 1-8 (“Appropriators fight to beat clock,” Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/194849-spending-bill-scramble-intensifies#ixzz2pv4zgXkx)Lawmakers scrambled Wednesday to maintain their momentum and complete writing an omnibus spending bill by Friday. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), however, acknowledged that some sort of short stopgap measure would now be likely to avoid a Jan. 16 shutdown. “Because of the Senate procedures, we are probably going to have to do a couple of days [continuing resolution],” Rogers said. He added that such a measure could run through Jan. 17, when Congress departs for another weeklong recess.Yet Rogers said negotiators are clearly making progress, with eight of the 12 parts of the omnibus done.“We probably have eight or so that are absolutely done,” he said. “We’re reducing the number of items that are in disagreement.”That represents progress from Tuesday when Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said six out of 12 were done.Getting the bill written by Friday would allow Congress to vote next week on the $1 trillion measure containing hundreds of pages of funding details.Sources said the Labor, Health and Education measure which involves ObamaCare and union-related provisions remained a problem on Wednesday. ObamaCare funding issues shut down the government for 16 days in October.In a positive sign for the omnibus, the controversial Interior and Environment portion appeared to be close to final.Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who chairs the subcommittee in charge of Environmental Protection Agency funding said the level of EPA funding had been finalized.Calvert also signaled that major policy riders were not going to be in the bill.“There is nothing in there that’s a showstopper,” he said. He added that he believes the bill will be done by Friday

AFF ANSWERS

2AC Immigration Reform

Won’t pass- House republicans won’t want to shift focus away from healthcareCassata, 1-8 (Immigration foes dig in amid expectations in House, http://www.kcautv.com/story/24397098/immigration-foes-dig-in-amid-expectations-in-house)Opposition remains steadfast in the House, with several Republicans unwilling to give Obama one of his top second-term priorities.More than a dozen conservative House Republicans on Wednesday signed a letter to Obama arguing that the immigration overhaul he supports would increase the number of guest workers and give work permits and permanent residency to 30 million immigrants over the next 10 years, forcing a reduction in wages and hurting American workers."So-called comprehensive immigration reform may be a good deal for big businesses who want to reduce labor costs, and it may be a good deal for progressive labor unions seeking new workers from abroad, but it's an awful deal for U.S. workers - including African-American and Hispanic communities enduring chronically high unemployment," the letter states. It was spearheaded by Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala.Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a chief foe of comprehensive immigration overhaul, said the issue would divide the GOP caucus and shift the focus from what he called the "calamity" of the health care law.Republicans sense an election-year lift in the problem-plagued rollout of the health care law, highlighting reports of canceled policies, higher premiums and other troubles. Republicans are looking to tighten their grip on the House and seize control of the Senate in November's midterm elections."It would be a colossal mistake for us to take up anything that just ends up changing the subject and getting it off Obamacare and splitting the Republican Party," King said after the closed-door session.King said Obama and the Democrats "want to debate immigration, they want to debate unemployment, they want to debate minimum wage," and Republicans should be wary of any diversion from health care.The Senate last year passed a comprehensive, bipartisan bill that addressed border security, provided enforcement measures and offered a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally. House leaders, pressed by tea party conservatives, demanded a more limited and piecemeal approach.The House Judiciary Committee has approved piecemeal bills, but they have languished since the summer despite intense pressure from a diverse coalition of religious groups, business led by the Chamber of Commerce, labor unions and immigration advocates.Although House Republican leaders say they want to resolve the issue, which has become a political drag for the GOP, many rank-and-file Republicans have shown little inclination to deal with immigration. Many argue that a path to citizenship for those here illegally amounts to amnesty.

Boehner is all talk- wants to manage it politically and appear as constructive but not get it through- even if it does its just piecemealAZ Central, 1-2 (Immigration reform still hinges on Boehner, http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20140101boehner-reform-hinges.html)Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which also opposes proposals that offer a broad pathway to citizenship, said he thinks Boehner wants to “appear constructive,” but that doesn’t mean he wants to get anything accomplished. “I think he’s drunk the Kool-Aid on the (importance of the) Hispanic vote and believes that his party must pass immigration reform to get that vote,” Krikorian said. “(But) John Boehner’s goal is not necessarily to get to the finish line. It’s to manage this issue politically.” Krikorian sees the immigration issue as pitting struggling American workers against big business, which wants more immigrants for cheap labor, and he argues that Republicans would be hurting themselves politically if they supported a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, especially in the still-tough economy. Boehner could finesse the issue politically by pushing through the incremental bills, letting them stall in the Senate, and blame Democrats for inaction, Krikorian said. “Limited legislation that passes the House but is ultimately not acted on by the Senate may be the best outcome from Boehner’s perspective,” he said.

Farm Bill, debt ceiling and funding bills will crowd out immigrationPolitico, 1-7 (Immigration reform’s narrow window for survival, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/comprehensive-immigration-reform-congress-senate-house-2014-101612.html)Even if they wanted to, it would be tough to push immigration to the top of the agenda. The beginning of the congressional year is clogged with deadlines for other must-do legislative items such as passing a funding bill to keep the government running and approving a new five-year farm bill.And another major fiscal deadline looms in late February or early March: the debt ceiling.The primary season will be in full swing by that point. Though primaries can occur as late as September, most of the filing deadlines for more than 80 percent of sitting House Republicans will have come and gone by the end of April, according to a POLITICO analysis.Three of the five states with the largest number of House Republicans in their delegations — Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio — will have held their primaries by the end of May. Texas is the earliest, with a March 4 primary. The two others — California and Florida — are where Republican lawmakers generally have been more amenable to an immigration overhaul.

White House political capital isn’t key to reformFox News, 1-7 (Obama And Congress Give One More Push For Immigration Reform, http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/01/07/obama-and-congress-give-one-more-push-for-immigration-reform/)

The White House's own strategy has not impressed before. Immigration advocates and Democratic lawmakers say the White House last year mistakenly assumed that the bipartisan Senate bill would create enough momentum to bulldoze its way through the House."They completely misunderstood the impact that the Senate bill would have," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, a key Democrat on immigration who sits on the House Judiciary Committee. "To think that that would magically transform the House of Representatives was never in the cards."

1AR- Won’t PassConservative push backNewsmax, 1-8 (Boehner, Cantor: Immigration Reform a Priority for 2014,http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-boehner-eric-cantor-republicans-law/2014/01/08/id/545986)Conservative immigration critics, however, said addressing the issue this year would be a mistake when lawmakers should instead be concentrating on defeating Obamacare. "It would be a colossal mistake for us to take up anything that would end up just changing the subject and getting it off Obamacare and onto something that splits the Republican Party," Republican Steve King of Iowa told The Journal. Meanwhile, Louisiana Republican Rep. John Fleming said Republicans would feel comfortable tightening the U.S.-Mexico border but would likely resist anything else. "There's going to be a lot of push-back because we have a president we can't trust," he said.

Chabot opposes he is keyAZ Central, 1-2 (Immigration reform still hinges on Boehner, http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20140101boehner-reform-hinges.html)The citizenship provision is a non-starter for many conservatives in Boehner’s conference who say it amounts to “amnesty” for lawbreakers. “That’s unfair to the millions of people who are trying to come to this country and follow the rules as they are,” said Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has a lead role in shaping the House approach to immigration. Chabot said that he couldn’t envision any scenario under which he could support such a measure and argued that Republicans should resist getting “stampeded into something that’s not good for the country.” Chabot said Republicans do need to reach out to Hispanic voters and “do much better with those groups,” adding, “But I don’t think the immigration bill itself is something that’s going to accomplish that.” Boehner has repeatedly rejected the Senate proposal and instead touted a series of incremental bills crafted by the House Judiciary and Homeland Security committees. “The American people are skeptical of big comprehensive bills, and frankly, they should be,” he said at a recent news conference. “The only way to make sure immigration reform works this time is to address these complicated issues one step at a time.” The narrower House bills would: Require the Department of Homeland Security to craft a strategy for gaining “operational control” of U.S. borders within two years. Make the federal E-Verify employment database system mandatory for employers nationwide. Allocate more green cards to foreign graduates of U.S. universities who earn advanced degrees in math and science. Create a guest-worker program for agricultural workers. Grant states and local governments the right to enforce federal immigration laws.

Yes Iran Sanctions

Senators are signing onto Iran sanctions- it will reach a veto-proof majorityJohnson, 1-8 (Bridget, “Veto-Proof Majority on Iran Sanctions Bill Looking More Likely,” http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/01/08/veto-proof-majority-on-iran-sanctions-bill-looking-more-likely/)The number of co-sponsors backing the Iran sanctions bill introduced before the holiday by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) has now reached 50, according to the Jerusalem Post . The last recorded number in the Library of Congress database is 47 co-sponsors. The most recent bump shows that not only would the bill that angers the White House pass on a bipartisan basis, but would likely hit a veto-proof majority on a bipartisan basis. At least 14 Democrats have signed on board the bill, including Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.).Supporters need 67 votes for a veto-proof majority. Assuming all Republicans vote for the bill, that leaves 22 Democrats needed come voting time.Both Colorado senators –Mark Udall (D) and Michael Bennet — have previously supported sanctions legislation. Other potential votes could include Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Clarie McCaskill (D-Mo.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).The Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act was introduced Dec. 19 by more than a quarter of the Senate. The bipartisan legislation proposes prospective sanctions against Iran’s petroleum, engineering, mining and construction sectors should the regime violate the interim Joint Plan of Action agreed to in Geneva or should Iran fail to reach a final agreement with the P5+1.“With regards to this particular measure, we don’t think it will be enacted. We certainly don’t think it should be enacted,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said at the time, promising a presidential veto. “And the reason why it should not and does not need to be enacted is because if Iran does not comply with its obligations under the Joint Plan of Action, the preliminary agreement, or if Iran fails to reach agreement with the P5-plus-1 on the more comprehensive agreement over the course of six months, we are very confident that we can work with Congress to very quickly pass new, effective sanctions against Iran. And it is our view that it is very important to refrain from taking an action that would potentially disrupt the opportunity here for a diplomatic resolution of this challenge.”The Menendez-Kirk effort already has high-ranking support from House leadership, with a similar resolution offered by Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

Democrats will continue to pick on and support Iran sanctions

Gardner, 1-07 (Iran sanctions bill opposed by Obama gains Senate backers, http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28897:iran-sanctions-bill-opposed-by-obama-gains-senate-backers&catid=8&Itemid=124)U.S. senators pushing a bill to slap new sanctions on Iran if it goes back on an interim deal under which it agreed to limit its nuclear program have gained support since the legislation was introduced in December, aides said on Monday.The bill, which the White House has threatened to veto, requires further reductions in Iran's oil exports and would apply new penalties on other industries if Iran either violates the interim agreement or fails to reach a final comprehensive deal.Iran signed the six-month interim deal in Geneva on November 24 with the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.The "Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act" had about 48 co-sponsors in the 100-member Senate on Monday, up from 26 when the bill was introduced on December 19, an Senate aide said."Expect that number to keep growing over next couple of days as folks who were out of town and staff get back in," the aide said.The bill was introduced by Robert Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Mark Kirk, a Republican from Illinois."We expect several Democrats to kind of cross the picket line and come on board this week," the aide said.Veto proof majority will make it impossible for Reid to prevent it from reaching the floorArmBruster, 1-6 (Ben, Security Experts Ask Senators To Pull Back Iran Sanctions Bill, http://thinkprogress.org/security/2014/01/06/3122551/crocker-experts-senate-iran-sanctions-bill/)CQ Roll Call reported last week that Reid “still has not publicly signaled his intentions on a floor vote” on the Kirk-Menendez bill.“The bill had 47 co-sponsors signed up before Christmas and we expect at least a dozen more to sign up in the first couple of days back in session,” a Senate aide said via e-mail to CQ. “Once there are 60 co-sponsors, meaning the bill can clear a cloture motion, it will be difficult for Harry Reid to delay a vote on the bill; if it gets to a veto-proof majority of co-sponsors, it will be nearly impossible.”The White House has been lobbying Congress against passing new sanctions. Secretary of State John Kerry told a House Panel last month that it would be “gratuitous in the context of this situation.”

2AC Tax Reform

No tax reform will pass and the economy is getting betterWashington Post, 1-8 (“U.S. Chamber to ‘pull out all stops’ to pass immigration reform,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/us-chamber-to-pull-out-all-stops-to-pass-immigration-reform/2014/01/08/ce7f899c-7883-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html)Comprehensive tax reform and entitlement reform are unlikely to pass this year, Donohue said in a news conference following the address.Donohue expressed some optimism about the economic recovery, predicting the U.S. economy will grow nearly 3 percent in 2014, surpassing estimated growth for 2013 of between 1.8 and 2 percent.“Housing is recovering and overall household wealth has now surpassed its pre-recession level,” he said. “This has boosted consumption, which is leading to more business investment and some new hiring.”

2AC Unemployment Insurance

Won’t pass- Republicans are looking for offsetsWashington Post, 1-7 (Senate moves ahead with measure to extend long-term unemployment benefits, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-moves-ahead-with-measure-to-extend-long-term-unemployment-benefits/2014/01/07/f6b3d486-77ac-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html)The triumph may be temporary, because the measure still faces big hurdles in the Senate and longer odds of passing the House.The crux of the negotiations now is the GOP demand for offsetting savings from other portions of the budget. The bill, sponsored by Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.), calls for an estimated $6.5 billion to grant an additional three months of benefits for the long-term unemployed.GOP leaders are increasingly concerned about public perceptions that they are insensitive to those who are still struggling in the slow economic recovery. In a recent memo to rank-and-file Republicans, House GOP leaders urged a show of empathy toward the jobless and advised members to view unemployment as a “personal crisis” for individuals and families.Seemingly poised for defeat, the legislation instead cleared an early hurdle by the narrowest of margins as six Senate Republicans sided with Democrats to advance it. The sides are now engaged in negotiations over legislation that would allow 1.3 million jobless workers to continue receiving unemployment insurance. The procedural vote in the Senate came as the two parties jockeyed over the political issue of rising income inequality, with Democrats pushing more aid for the jobless and an increased minimum wage. In his speech after the vote, the president called unemployment insurance “a vital economic lifeline” for the millions who are jobless.Several prominent Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.), plan to tout conservative alternatives to the Democratic proposals and other anti-poverty programs Wednesday as they mark the 50th anniversary of the beginning of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty.For now, the fight over unemployment has become the main focus of the debate. At the end of December, the emergency laws that extended jobless benefits beyond the traditional 26 weeks expired, forcing about 1.3 million people off the program. More unemployed Americans will lose their benefits as the year progresses and they surpass their states’ normal timelines.

Won’t pass and Political capital can’t solveGreen, 1-7 (Obama's Shame Offensive on Unemployment Insurance, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-07/obamas-shame-offensive-on-unemployment-insurance)Still, there’s a reason why the bully pulpit can’t accomplish much, and we were quickly reminded of it: House Republicans. They appear to be immune from presidential shaming. Here’s a statement from House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) after today’s vote, shooting the Senate bill to pieces:

One month ago I personally told the White House that another extension of temporary emergency unemployment benefits should not only be paid for but include something to help put people back to work. To date, the president has offered no such plan. If he does, I’ll be happy to discuss it, but right now the House is going to remain focused on growing the economy and giving America’s unemployed the independence that only comes from finding a good job.In other words, the Senate bill, if it passes, is dead on arrival, like most bills sent to the House.

Senate Republicans will back out if there’s no offsetWashington Post, 1-7 (Senate moves ahead with measure to extend long-term unemployment benefits, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-moves-ahead-with-measure-to-extend-long-term-unemployment-benefits/2014/01/07/f6b3d486-77ac-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html)Obama called at least three key Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Rob Portman (Ohio) — in the run-up to the vote, signaling that he is willing to discuss other spending cuts.“When he called, the president did not eliminate the possibility of paying for an extension, but he did not get into how exactly he would do that,” Collins said Tuesday.White House advisers said that Obama is willing to discuss spending offsets only for a longer-term extension of unemployment benefits, not the three-month bill under consideration.That sets up a delicate negotiation. Of the six Republican senators who voted yes Tuesday — Collins, Portman, Heller, Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Dan Coats (Ind.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) — five said they were unlikely to support the legislation as it is currently drafted. The six voted with 54 members of the Democratic caucus to approve a motion allowing the measure to move ahead, but Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) will need to clear a second 60-vote hurdle to bring it to a final vote.In the House, Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) took a hard line on what it would take to pass the extension in his chamber; among the GOP’s possible demands are exemptions from Obama’s health-care law and approval for the building of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.For now, House GOP aides said, Boehner’s leadership team is content to see how the talks play out in the Senate before they consider other options.Senate Democrats questioned whether Republicans were leading them to a negotiating dead end in which no one could find reductions that would be agreeable to enough Democrats and still win approval from House and Senate Republicans. “We don’t want a Mexican standoff where we put in our pay-for and they put in their pay-for,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters after the vote.

Politico, 1-8 (In surprise move, unemployment benefits advance, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/unemployment-insurance-benefits-vote-101835.html)Democrats were able to secure six Republican votes to advance the three-month extension of unemployment benefits, nabbing just the 60 votes that are necessary to move ahead. But now they must work with centrist Republicans to strike a bipartisan accord that would offset the legislation’s $6.5 billion cost, a tall task in a Senate still brimming with partisan divisions.

But it’s not at all clear that the Republicans who sided with Democrats to break the filibuster will vote for final passage. Two of them said Tuesday they would most likely oppose it without the offsets they are seeking.(Also on POLITICO: Why the GOP could win it all in 2014)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he spoke to White House chief of staff Denis McDonough on Tuesday about finding spending cuts or new revenue to pay for the bill — McDonough told Reid he’d “run the traps” on it. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has also begun discussing pay-for proposals with Democrats.Though Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) seemed buoyed by Reid and McDonough’s openness to find a way to fund the bill, Reid warned that there’s no such thing as easy money in this political climate.“If they come with something that’s serious, I’ll talk to them. But right now everyone should understand, the low-hanging fruit is gone,” Reid said.(WATCH: Tom Coburn slams jobless benefits 'spin')Senate Democrats hope to hold a vote on final passage by the end of the week ahead of work on a government spending bill that must pass before Jan. 15.Several Republicans voted to advance the bill with the expectation that the Senate will find a way to pay for it and perhaps make structural reforms to the unemployment insurance program. Republicans will have another opportunity to block the bill before it can move to final passage, and may eventually vote to scuttle the bill if they are dissatisfied with the amendment process.GOP Sens. Dan Coats of Indiana and Rob Portman of Ohio — who supported breaking the filibuster — said they would very likely end up opposing the legislation if money is not found to pay for it.(Driving the Day: GOP don't want to make themselves the story)“I voted to proceed with the debate over how to address unemployment insurance with the hope that during the debate the Senate will agree to pay for the extension and work to improve the unemployment insurance program so it works better to connect those unemployed with available jobs,” Portman said.In return for several Republican “yes” votes, Democrats began to back away from their position that the legislation should not be paid for, a key development for the legislation not only to clear the Senate but also for its future in the Republican-controlled House.

Boehner will blockPolitico, 1-6 (White House unemployment benefits push kicks into high gear, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/white-house-unemployment-benefits-101763.html#ixzz2ptyQPHU1)President Barack Obama returns from his Hawaii holiday toting a familiar message — blame the Republicans — as the White House and its allies launch a fresh weeklong effort to spotlight Congress’s failure to renew long-term unemployment benefits.The push kicks into high gear Tuesday, as the president hosts a group of unemployed Americans at the White House.

That event — which comes as Democrats ramp up what they hope is a midterm-friendly focus on income inequality — will be followed by daily White House efforts to keep the story in the news, a White House official said. Obama’s political arm, Organizing for Action, has also planned events in 30 cities Tuesday to pressure Republicans, according to people familiar with the plans.Labor and progressive groups are organizing phone calls to the Capitol and holding a Wednesday rally there featuring unemployed workers and supportive Democratic members of Congress. And on Thursday, Americans United for Change will begin airing TV ads to make the case that the GOP alone is responsible for the cancelled unemployment benefits.House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he would consider any unemployment benefit extension only if it is paid for, a position Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck reiterated Sunday.But National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling said in an interview airing Sunday on “Meet the Press” that precedent from the George W. Bush years dictates unemployment benefits be extended without being paid for.“ Fourteen of the last 17 times that emergency unemployment’s been extended there have been no strings attached,” Sperling said. “All five times that President Bush extended unemployment benefits there were no pay-fors.”(Also on POLITICO: Dems seize on income inequality)And a White House official said there’s no need to offset spending in the three-month extension Senate Democrats and Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) have proposed.“There is no reason why we should have to offset emergency UI because it brings back more money into the economy than it spends, and Congress has passed bipartisan emergency extensions in the past without strings attached,” the White House official said.Democrats think the issue is high political ground for them — an area far more advantageous than Obamacare and its tortured rollout. It comes as the White House is preparing a season of events focusing on income inequality and a minimum wage hike that has no hope of passing the House.

House Republicans won’t cave on unemployment benefitsPolitico, 1-8 (Jobless benefits not top priority to House GOP, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/unemployment-benefits-expansion-house-republicans-gop-101942.html#ixzz2pu7pEufv)President Barack Obama’s desire to renew emergency jobless benefits is running into a familiar avalanche of indifference: the House.House Republicans are showing little appetite, urgency and interest in extending the program, and are hinting that they are content to let the issue disappear if the Senate fails to pass its own legislation.The reasons for this stance are plentiful. Some Republicans think the nation is awash with unoccupied jobs, others are wary of shuffling more government money to the unemployed and nearly every GOP lawmaker wants to see seismic changes to the way benefits are administered.(Also on POLITICO: Democrats downbeat on paying for unemployment)And as the Senate wrestles with its bill, senior House Republicans think the Senate will offset the bill in a way the lower chamber finds unacceptable. Adding to their demands, House Republicans say they won’t pass a bill that doesn’t contain something they deem a “job-

creation” measure. Some rank-and-file Republicans are already floating the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline as a price for jobless benefits.There are loads of Republicans who simply think the current policy is garbage.“Five-and-a-half years of emergency, temporary extensions stacks up at some point and I hear and understand all the statements about it stimulating the economy and all those things. The challenge is we continue to borrow another $6.5 billion from the future,” said Oklahoma Rep. James Lankford, chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee. “The impression that I get is times are tough now, so we’ll make it tougher on our kids to make it easier on us. I just think that’s a problem.”Add all of these elements together, and it seems that a knife has been driven into the White House’s first agenda item of 2014.(Also on POLITICO: Prominent GOPers talk poverty)Republicans are making a multifaceted political and policy calculation. They think unemployment insurance is a broken program, and that most voters won’t label them coldhearted for allowing the stimulus-era program to expire. Not to mention that the totality of jobless benefits won’t disappear — just extended benefits, which originated during the depths of the economic recession.Senior Republican aides and lawmakers also believe that attacks over failing to act on jobless benefits will pass, similar to what happened when they ignored Obama’s pleas for gun control. But there’s danger in this approach. First, the preponderance of public polling shows support for such benefits. Republicans are three weeks away from their legislative retreat in Cambridge, Md., and as of right now, they have no legislative agenda. So if the Senate clears its unemployment bill, the House — operating in an environment bereft of other legislative issues — could feel pressure to move one.Obama’s timing for his jobless benefit push coincides with the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty speech. High-profile Capitol Hill Republicans like Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio are using the occasion to promote their alternative to current social safety net policies.At this stage, House Republicans say they will not craft their own extension of jobless benefits but instead will wait to see if the Senate can pass its legislation. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he is willing to consider a package that is “paid for and if there were provisions that we could agree to that would get our economy moving again and put the American people back to work.” Boehner said Wednesday that Obama’s chief of staff Denis McDonough called him just one week before the December recess to request he pass an extension of the benefits.(Also on POLITICO: Nancy Pelosi defends income equality push)“We’re all concerned about those who have had a difficult time trying to find a job,” Boehner said Wednesday. “That’s why we’ve passed dozens of bills to try to help improve the economy so that those jobs will be created. We’re going to continue to do our work but the Senate ought to be looking at ways to really solve this problem and that’s to help the American people get the jobs that they want.”But as of right now most Hill Republicans are content with turning this issue around on Obama, incessantly saying that his request for additional benefits highlights failed economic policies.

There won’t be an offset

CNN, 1-8 (Prospects worsen for Senate passage of unemployment benefits, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/08/prospects-worsen-for-senate-passage-of-unemployment-benefits/)(CNN) - The prospects for passing an extension of benefits for the long-term unemployed got significantly worse Wednesday after two Republican senators who voted with Democrats earlier this week said they will pull their much-needed support unless Democrats come up with a way to pay for the $6.4 billion bill.Without the votes of Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio and Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who voted on Tuesday to begin debate on the bill, Democrats won’t be able to get over a 60 vote threshold needed to break a GOP filibuster and end debate on the measure, which would extend the benefits for the next three months.Democrats, meanwhile, appeared to be hardening their position. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, who had been working with Democrats and Republicans to see if they could find offsets acceptable to both parties, issued a statement saying a deal was unlikely.“I don’t think there’s much enthusiasm for a three-month offset deal on our side,” Schumer said.

2014 Elections- Republicans Will Win Senate

Republicans will win major in the MidtermsSabato, 1-6 (Larry J. Sabato has been forecasting elections and analyzing the results—correctly predicting 98 percent of Senate, House and governor winners in, 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012. Starting with this column, Sabato, a university professor of politics and director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, joins Politico Magazine as a regular contributor. Twice a month, he’ll be sharing his insights on how the 2014 midterm races are shaping up—and the factors that really matter, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/midterm-elections-republicans-really-could-win-2014-101802.html#ixzz2pu9dkVPO)Another midterm election beckons, and over the next 10 months we’ll see headlines about a thousand supposedly critical developments—the “game changers” and the “tipping points.” But we all know there aren’t a thousand powerful drivers of the vote. I’d argue that three factors are paramount: the president, the economy and the election playing field. And, at least preliminarily, those three factors seem to be pointing toward Republican gains in both houses in the 2014 midterms.Why?1. The president. His job approval numbers are perhaps the best indicator of the public’s overall political orientation at any given time, a kind of summary statistic that takes everything at the national level into account. In a large majority of cases, the president’s party does poorly in midterms, especially the second midterm of a two-term administration. It’s a rare president who doesn’t make enough mistakes by his sixth year to generate a disproportionate turnout among his opponents—thus producing a political correction at the polls. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower in 1958, Lyndon Johnson in 1966, Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford in 1974, Ronald Reagan in 1986 and George W. Bush in 2006 all experienced significant corrections in their sixth-year elections.Still, this doesn’t always happen. Presidents Franklin Roosevelt in 1934 and Bush in 2002 managed to gain a few House seats, but this was in their first midterm. The Democrats lost no Senate seats and actually picked up a few in the House in 1998, President Bill Clinton’s second midterm.President Barack Obama might take some heart from the Clinton example, but only up to a point. Like Clinton in 1994, Obama was unpopular enough by 2010 that Democrats lost the House in a landslide. That and partisan redistricting—a tactic engaged in by both parties but currently tilted to the GOP—reduces Republican chances for a House seat sweep in 2014 because there simply aren’t many additional seats available for Republicans, barring a tidal wave of voter anger even larger than 2010.But Obama’s popularity has sagged badly in his fifth year. While some unforeseen event in 2014 might add some points to his job approval average, the odds are against a full restoration; it’s just as likely Obama’s polling average, currently in the low 40s, will decline further—though Obama may have a relatively high floor because of consistent backing from minority voters and other elements of the Democratic base.

As 2014 begins, the environment for the Democrats in this election year is not good. The botched, chaotic rollout of the Affordable Care Act is the obvious cause, but it is broader than that: the typical sixth-year unease that produces a “send-them-a-message” election. Fortunately for Democrats, the GOP-initiated shutdown of the federal government in October has tempered the public’s desire for a shift to the Republican side, too. “None of the above” might win a few races in November if voters had the choice.2. The economy, but mainly if it’s bad. Eisenhower’s 57 percent approval rating couldn’t prevent Republicans from losing 47 House seats and 13 Senate seats in 1958 because of a shaky economy. GDP growth had contracted by an astounding 10.4 percent in the first quarter of that year, though it rebounded later in the year. More recently, there was the 2006 election; while most analysts thought the Democratic takeover of Congress that year was mainly about Bush’s war in Iraq, the economy wasn’t performing on all cylinders. GDP growth in the second and third quarters of 2006 was an anemic 1.6 percent and 0.1 percent, respectively. The economy, still reeling from the 2008 economic near-collapse, was also the root cause of the Democrats’ 2010 debacle.Midterm MadnessAs a general rule, the president's party does poorly in midterm elections. Especially the second midterm of a two-term administration. But in politics the converse does not always prove the rule; in fact, a good economy doesn’t seem to help the president’s party much in many midterm elections, with 1950, 1966 and 1986 being strong examples. So while economic hard times are likely to hit a president’s party hardest, it may be that restless voters shift their concerns and unhappiness about a president to other topics in the absence of economic woes. So even if the economy continues to improve, Obama and the Democrats might not reap an electoral benefit.3. The electoral playing field. How many vulnerable seats are there in the House for the president’s party? This is mainly a result of prior elections. A presidential victory with coattails (think 1936, 1948, 1964 and 2008) results in a party winning lots of vulnerable seats that can be swept away when the tides change in subsequent midterms. The Democrats lost their weaker members in 2010 and failed to add many seats in 2012; these disappointments protect them from drastic House losses this coming November.The Senate is a different story. There is no such thing as a typical Senate election. These high-profile contests are idiosyncratic, driven by distinctive circumstances, sometimes quirky candidates and massive spending. A hidden determinant is the division of the Senate into three classes—one-third is elected every two years, making the combination of competitive Senate seats unpredictable and ever shifting, unlike in the heavily gerrymandered House. One party is usually favored to gain seats from the outset, thanks to the pattern of retirements as well as the structure of the Senate class on the ballot.So: How many Democratic Blue or Republican Red seats are there in an election year? How many incumbents are running, and did any senators holding seats in states favoring the opposite party step aside? How strong has the candidate recruitment been in both parties? Generally speaking, this year’s Senate slate strongly favors the Republicans.***At this early stage, the combination of these three factors suggests a good election year for the GOP. The president is a Democrat and his approval is weak. The economy may be improving,

based on GDP growth (4.1 percent in the third quarter), but voters still don’t believe their personal economy, at least, has picked up much. Instead, the major national issue of the moment is Obamacare, which at this point is a loser for Democrats. The structure of the election in the House and Senate also bends in the GOP direction.

Yes Spending Bills

Spending bills will passThe Hill, 1-8 (“Appropriators fight to beat clock,” Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/194849-spending-bill-scramble-intensifies#ixzz2pv4zgXkx)Lawmakers scrambled Wednesday to maintain their momentum and complete writing an omnibus spending bill by Friday. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), however, acknowledged that some sort of short stopgap measure would now be likely to avoid a Jan. 16 shutdown. “Because of the Senate procedures, we are probably going to have to do a couple of days [continuing resolution],” Rogers said. He added that such a measure could run through Jan. 17, when Congress departs for another weeklong recess.Yet Rogers said negotiators are clearly making progress, with eight of the 12 parts of the omnibus done.“We probably have eight or so that are absolutely done,” he said. “We’re reducing the number of items that are in disagreement.”That represents progress from Tuesday when Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said six out of 12 were done.Getting the bill written by Friday would allow Congress to vote next week on the $1 trillion measure containing hundreds of pages of funding details.Sources said the Labor, Health and Education measure which involves ObamaCare and union-related provisions remained a problem on Wednesday. ObamaCare funding issues shut down the government for 16 days in October.In a positive sign for the omnibus, the controversial Interior and Environment portion appeared to be close to final.Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who chairs the subcommittee in charge of Environmental Protection Agency funding said the level of EPA funding had been finalized.Calvert also signaled that major policy riders were not going to be in the bill.“There is nothing in there that’s a showstopper,” he said. He added that he believes the bill will be done by Friday.

Previous Thursday File

Immigration

1NC4 reasons why immigration reform will passLopez 1-1 [Oscar, Latino writer & scholar, Latin Times, "New Year 2014: 4 reasons Immigration reform will pass in 2014" http://www.latintimes.com/new-year-2014-4-reasons-immigration-reform-will-pass-2014-141778

Immigration reform is set to be the key issue of 2014. Following Mitt Romney's dismal performance among Latino voters in the 2012 election, both sides of the Government woke up to the necessity for comprehensive reform on immigration. Indeed, in his State of the Union address in February, President Obama declared that “the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform.” Yet with the House divided over Obamacare and the budget crisis, the Government Shutdown let immigration reform die. 2014 will change that: and here are 4 Reasons Why.

1. Republican Support: A fundamental lack of support from the GOP has always been one of the major obstacles for passing comprehensive reform legislation, and indeed this seemed to be the case this year after the Bill passed by the Senate was struck down by Congress. However, more and more GOP members are realizing the significance of the Latino vote and understanding that passing comprehensive immigration reform is the most significant way of securing support from Latino voters.

A July poll from Latino Decisions found that immigration reform was the most important issue facing the Latino community for 60 percent of those surveyed. The poll also found that 70 percent of those questioned were dissatisfied with the job Republicans were doing on the issue. The survey also found the 39 percent would be more likely to support a Republican congressional candidate if immigration reform was passed with Republican leadership.

Republican candidates have become aware of the significance of immigration reform for the party. Even in traditionally conservative Republican strongholds like Texas, candidates are turning towards immigration reform. According to Republican strategist and CNN en Español commentator Juan Hernandez, "it also wouldn’t surprise me if after the primary, the candidates move to the center and support reform. For Republicans to stay in leadership in Texas, we must properly address immigration.”

The March 2014 primaries will be a key moment in determining how reform progresses: Republican Strategist John Feehery suggests, “The timing on this is very important. What was stupid to do becomes smart to do a little bit later in the year.” Once the primaries are over, GOP members will have the chance to implement reform legislation without fear of challenges from the right.

2. Legalization Over Citizenship: While the Senate’s 2013 immigration reform bill was struck down by Congress, GOP party members have indicated that they will support legislation which favors legalization of undocumented immigrants over a path to citizenship.

Meanwhile, a recent survey from Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project demonstrated that 55 percent of Hispanic adults believe that legalizing immigrants and removing the fear of deportation is more important than a pathway to citizenship (although citizenship is still important to 89 percent of Latinos surveyed.)

As CBS suggests, “Numbers like these could give leverage to lawmakers who are interested in making some reforms to the legal immigration system, but not necessarily offering any kind of citizenship.”

If House Republicans offered legalization legislation for the undocumented community, this could put pressure on the President to compromise. And while this kind of reform would not be as comprehensive as the Senate’s bill, a bipartisan agreement would be a significant achievement towards accomplishing reform.

3. Activism Steps Up: 2013 saw one of the biggest surges in grassroots activism from immigration supporters, and political leaders started to listen. The hunger strike outside the White House was a particularly significant demonstration and drew visits of solidarity from a number of leaders from both sides of Congress, including the President and First Lady.

Immigration reform activists have promised "we will be back in 2014." Indeed, 2014 promises to be a year of even greater activism. Activist Eliseo Medina has pledged that immigrant advocacy groups would visit “as many congressional districts as possible” in 2014 to ensure further support.

Protests, rallies and marchers are likely to increase in 2014, putting greater pressure on Congress to pass legislation. Such visual, vocal protests will be key in ensuring comprehensive reform.

4. Leadership: As immigration reform comes to the fore, party leaders will step up in 2014 to ensure change is achieved. While President Obama has made clear his support for comprehensive reform, House Speaker John Boehner previously stated that he had “no intention” of negotiating with the Senate on their comprehensive immigration bill.

However, towards the end of 2013, it seemed that Representative Boehner was changing his tune. In November, President Obama revealed that “the good news is, just this past week Speaker Boehner said that he is “hopeful we can make progress” on immigration reform.” As if to prove the point, Boehner has recently hired top aide Rebecca Tallent to work on immigration reform.

With bipartisan leadership firmly focused on immigration reform and party members on both sides realizing the political importance of the issue, comprehensive legislation is one thing we can be sure of in 2014.

Major shifts in policy towards Latin America cause partisan battles Whitehead & Nolte 12 (Laurence Whitehead, senior research fellow in politics at Nuffield College, Oxford, and Detlef Nolte, acting president of the GIGA, director of the GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies, professor of political science at the University of Hamburg, Number 6, 2012, http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1206.pdf, CMR)

US–Latin America relations are routinely managed by multiple bureaucratic agencies, which can act quite

autonomously and are often not coordinated via a common ¶ strategy. Obama’s Latin America policy has frequently

been hampered by political ¶ polarization and partisan divisions in Congress. „ The intermestic

dimension of US–Latin American relations has complicated foreign ¶ policy, because a more self-confident and autonomous majority in Latin America ¶ has sometimes sought a policy shift with regard to highly sensitive topics, such as ¶ drugs, immigration and Cuba.¶ „ One issue area where some would criticize the Obama administration is its slowness ¶ in improving relations with Brazil or placing Brazil on par with, for

example, India.¶ „ It is unlikely that Latin America’s modest ranking in US foreign policy will increase ¶ or that

Washington’s priorities will shift much after the November 2012 elections.

Political capital key to immigrationChicago Tribune 10-17“Government shutdown: Crisis averted, Obama says Americans 'fed up',” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-government-shutdown-20131017,0,1184326.story

President Barack Obama scolded congressional Republicans today after a fiscal crisis was narrowly averted and called on his opponents to help

repair the economic damage caused by a 16-day U.S. government shutdown and a close brush with a debt default.¶ Obama stressed that he is willing to work with lawmakers wherever they can agree, but the tone he struck amounted to a rebuke of Republicans, whom Americans largely blame for pushing the United States to the brink of an economic calamity.¶ "The American people are completely fed up with Washington," Obama said in a White House speech attended by many of the aides who worked day and night through the various stages of the latest fiscal stalemate.¶ Hours after he signed into law a bill hastily cobbled together to end the crisis, Obama said events over the past two weeks had inflicted "completely unnecessary" damage on the U.S. economy.¶ An increase in borrowing costs caused by the near-debt default was harmful and consumers cut back on spending with hundreds of thousands of government workers

suddenly idled, he said.¶ "There was no economic rationale for all of this," he said. ¶ Though bruised by the battle, Obama emerged as the clear winner. He immediately sought to use the political capital gained to advance a domestic policy agenda centered around a fresh round of budget talks and an effort to win approval of

two stalled items, immigration reform and a farm bill.¶ He did not mention an urgent challenge facing him now: Repairing the flaws

in his signature healthcare law that have prevented many Americans from even signing up for it.

Immigration reform essential to prevent economic declinePrunetti 12-4 [Robert, president & CEO of MidJersey Chamber of Commerce, Princentoninfo.com "Immigration reform key to economic growth"

http://www.princetoninfo.com/index.php?option=com_us1more&Itemid=6&key=12-4-13reform

Contrary to what some would have us believe, immigration reform is a path to economic growth, embraced by a significant group of influential conservatives who understand that America risks losing its competitive edge to countries around the world that are growing and are our competitors.

Leading conservatives such as Grover Norquist (founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform) and Al Cardenas (chair of the American Conservative Union) and hundreds of other similar opinion leaders throughout the country gathered recently in Washington, D.C., to send their message of promoting economic growth, lowering deficits, supporting innovation, and developing a more skilled workforce to Congress.

The Congressional Budget Office also found that immigration reform would spur economic expansion. Simply put, enacting sensible immigration reform is the single greatest opportunity we have to insure the future economic growth of our nation. The United States must remain competitive in a global economy where so many emerging countries are now competing for world economic pre-eminence.

Several recent studies, one by the Center for American Progress) and the most recent by the Bipartisan Policy Center, among others, show that immigration reform will increase GDP by at least $1.5 trillion over the next decade and would decrease the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the next two decades. Higher personal incomes of newly legalized immigrant workers would generate increased consumer spending enough to support 750,000 to 900,000 jobs in the US. New immigration of 100,000 per year would preserve 4,600 American manufacturing jobs and grow U.S. housing wealth by $80 billion annually.

In New Jersey, minimally, the 10-year cumulative increase in gross state product would be $50 billion and increased earnings would be $30 billion. Reform would create 7,200 jobs annually in our state. The H-1B visa program (visas for high skilled technical jobs) would add 4,000 STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) type jobs in 2014 alone and 20,000 by 2020. In a state that is becoming increasingly attractive to these kinds of industries (New Jersey led the nation in high tech job creation in 2012), the need to attract and retain highly skilled workers is critical to our competitiveness and our future economy.

The U.S. is falling behind much of the world in population growth. We are following the path of many Asian and European nations with lower birth rates and family sizes.

For the past 40 years the number of seniors for every working age adult has been constant at 20 seniors for every 100 working age adults. Over the next 20 years, there will be 34 seniors for every 100 working age adults. Countries with declining population growth rates, such as Japan, have seen their economies shrink in correlation to their population decline. Countries experiencing these declining trends and are in danger of the same economic deceleration.

Immigration will expand our economy in key economic sectors. In the STEM industries for example, immigrants are essential to filling the massive shortfall of highly skilled workers our economy needs. Right now, if every American graduate with an advanced high tech degree fills an available job, we would still face a projected worker shortfall in STEM industries of more than 200,000 by the year 2018. Jobs in these industries have grown three times as fast as jobs in the rest of our economy over the past 10 years. Immigrants are also innovators. More than 76 percent of the patents at the top 10 patent-producing universities are held by immigrants.

In agriculture, 80 percent of all seasonal workers are foreign born. There is a severe shortage of native manual farm laborers. Picture our country without the labor force necessary to support agriculture. Will we become dependent on foreign countries for food as we had become dependent for energy?

In manufacturing, the data shows that for every 1,000 immigrants living in a country, 46 manufacturing jobs are created or preserved. Immigration has accounted for a majority of job growth in the four of five U.S. counties that have experienced the greatest increase in manufacturing jobs since 1970. The more than 40 million immigrants in the United States have created or preserved 1.8 million manufacturing jobs.

Extensive data demonstrates immigration reform is the path for growth. The numbers reaffirm what we already know. That is that during each of our nation’s growth periods, agriculture in colonial times, our industrial revolution in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the post World War II expansion, smart immigration policies enabled the United States to lead the world in growth and economic prosperity. Now, in the technological and global economy age, where competition is fierce and barriers to entry are less onerous, we must once again open our country and our markets to the initiative, ingenuity, and expertise of immigrants.

Economic decline causes protectionism:

AARON FRIEDBERG and GABRIEL SCHOENFELD, 10/21/2008 (professor of politics and international relations @ Princeton & a visiting scholar @ Princeton, “The Dangers of a Diminished America,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html, Accessed 11/7/2012, rwg)

Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger as jobs disappear in the coming slowdown. Even before our current woes, calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support among many Democrats and some Republicans. In a prolonged recession, gale-force winds of protectionism will blow.

Protectionism Causes NUCLEAR WAR

Copley News Service, 12/1/99 (Lexis)

For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real . Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations . In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative

global economics . Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War

protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together

rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war . That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without

world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.

Uniqueness

Geneeral

Immigration reform will pass. Large corporations and small businesses pushing reformLas Cruces Sun-News 1/2 ["Still hope for immigration bill this year" http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_24825449/imm

"The chances of congressional passage of immigration reform are good because each party has political reasons for wanting to deliver for Latinos and the business community," Darrel West, an immigration policy expert at the Brookings Institution, told CBS News. "The biggest challenge is the pathway to citizenship, where the parties remain far apart. A possible compromise could involve creating a pathway that is longer and has more conditions that were in the Senate bill. That will displease reformers but provide cover for (House Speaker John) Boehner to move the legislation."

Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national federation of small-business owners in favor of immigration reform. said business support for immigration reform could be key in 2014.

"Unlike in years past, when most employers hid from the debate, or at best worked the issue quietly behind the scenes, many companies are now eager to link their names with immigration reform: well-known national companies like Caterpillar, Marriott and State Farm Insurance, but also local mom-and-pop businesses like the 100 small business owners from Clark County Washington who organized this summer to post pro-reform flyers in their shop windows," she said in an opinion piece for CNN.

Immigration reform will be passed by June O'Shea 1-2 [James, staff writer, Irish Central, "House speaker Boehner now said to embrace immigration reform" http://www.irishcentral.com/news/House-Speaker-Boehner-now-said-to-embrace-immigration-reform-238430711.html

Legislation could pass the House in May or June after primary challenges to sitting Republicans are over.

“That’s our first window,” Jim Wallis, the president of Sojourners, a Christian social justice organization in Washington that is working to change the immigration laws, told The Times.

“We are organizing, mobilizing, getting ready here. I do really think that we have a real chance at this in the first half of the year.”

“I would bet money that it will be done before the presidential election of 2016, but I think there’s a very good chance it will get done considerably sooner than that — in 2014,” said

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and one of the architects of the immigration legislation in the Senate, told The Times.

“I’m going to be pushing hard to try to get it done early next year,” said Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican who is a proponent of an immigration overhaul. “The earlier the better, I think.”

Immigration Reform will pass. Boehner is on boardShear & Parker 1-1 [Michael & Ashley, NY Times "Boehner is said to back change on immigration" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/us/politics/boehner-is-said-to-back-change-on-immigration.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0

WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio has signaled he may embrace a series of limited changes to the nation’s immigration laws in the coming months, giving advocates for change new hope that 2014 might be the year that a bitterly divided Congress reaches a political compromise to overhaul the sprawling system.

Mr. Boehner has in recent weeks hired Rebecca Tallent, a longtime immigration adviser to Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who has long backed broad immigration changes. Advocates for an overhaul say the hiring, as well as angry comments by Mr. Boehner critical of Tea Party opposition to the recent budget deal in Congress, indicates that he is serious about revamping the immigration system despite deep reservations from conservative Republicans.

Aides to Mr. Boehner said this week that he was committed to what he calls “step by step” moves to revise immigration laws, which they have declined to specify.

But other House Republicans, who see an immigration overhaul as essential to wooing the Hispanic voters crucial to the party’s fortunes in the 2016 presidential election, said they could move on separate bills that would fast-track legalization for agricultural laborers, increase the number of visas for high-tech workers and provide an opportunity for young immigrants who came to the country illegally as children to become American citizens.

Although the legislation would fall far short of the demands being made by immigration activists, it could provide the beginnings of a deal.

For Mr. Boehner, hiring Ms. Tallent suggests a new commitment to confronting an issue that has long divided the Republican Party. Ms. Tallent is a veteran of more than a decade of congressional immigration battles and fought, ultimately unsuccessfully, for comprehensive overhauls of the immigration system in 2003 and 2007.

Although Mr. Boehner’s aides say she was brought on to carry out his views and not her own, advocates of immigration change say the only reason for Mr. Boehner to have hired Ms. Tallent is his desire to make a deal this year.

In addition, immigration advocates say that Mr. Boehner’s end-of-year rant against Tea Party groups — in which he said they had “lost all credibility” — is an indicator of what he will do this year on immigration. The groups are the same ones that hope to rally the Republican base against an immigration compromise, and while Mr. Boehner cannot say so publicly, he will have more room to maneuver on the issue if he feels free to disregard the arguments from those organizations.

Aides continue to say that Mr. Boehner remains opposed to a single, comprehensive bill like the Senate-passed measure that would tighten border security, increase legal immigration and offer an eventual path to American citizenship for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. Conservatives are staunchly opposed to sweeping legislation that would offer a path to citizenship.

“The American people are skeptical of big, comprehensive bills, and frankly, they should be,” Mr. Boehner told reporters recently. “The only way to make sure immigration reform works this time is to address these complicated issues one step at a time. I think doing so will give the American people confidence that we’re dealing with these issues in a thoughtful way and a deliberative way.”

Nonetheless, immigration activists say they are hopeful that politics may ultimately lead Mr. Boehner to ignore conservative voices who oppose a path to citizenship. Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for president in 2012, who took a hard line on immigration, won only 27 percent of the Hispanic vote — a key reason for his loss to President Obama.

Mr. Obama has in the meantime said he is open to the piecemeal approach on immigration favored by House Republicans, but only if it does not abandon comprehensive goals in legislation that passed the Senate last summer. Reconciling the House approach with the broader ambitions of the Senate bill is the biggest hurdle, strategists in both camps say.

Momentum from republicans in support for immigration reform Dearie & Geduldig 12-29 [ John, executive vice president at the Financial Services Forum, Courtney vice president of global regulatory affairs at Standard & Poor's, Wall Street Journal, "more immigration means more jobs for Americans" http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303290904579278173121185300

Congress may be on recess, but top Republicans are signaling that 2014 could be crucial for immigration reform. On Dec. 16, Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) said in a radio interview that the U.S. immigration system is "broken" and "indefensible" and that he will support reform as long as it "maintains Republican, conservative principles." Speaker of the House John

Boehner seems to agree: The Ohio Republican recently hired a longtime immigration advocate as an adviser, after stating in November that reform is "absolutely not" dead

Immigration reform will pass in 2014Kaplan 12-26 [Rebecca, political reporter, CBSnews.com "Can immigration reform pass in 2014?" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-immigration-reform-pass-in-2014/

Though the conventional wisdom holds that passing any major legislation in an election year is a heavy lift, there are signs that may not hold true in 2014 because the growing population of Latino voters will exert greater influence in the coming elections.

“The chances of congressional passage of immigration reform are good because each party has political reasons for wanting to deliver for Latinos and the business community,” said Darrel West, an immigration policy expert at the Brookings Institution. “The biggest challenge is the pathway to citizenship, where the parties remain far apart. A possible compromise could involve creating a pathway that is longer and has more conditions that were in the Senate bill. That will displease reformers but provide cover for Boehner to move the legislation.”

John Feehery, a Republican strategist and former congressional aide, said getting immigration done will be important for the GOP in the long run if they can do it on their own terms – in a series of shorter bills. But he also predicted that legislation won’t move for several months until the primaries for the 2014 elections have concluded House members will less concerned about challenges from the right.

Obama Pushing Immigration Reform

Obama is making immigration reform his top priorityMiller 12/25 [Emily, senior editor, Washington Times, "Miller: Obama's dangerous immigration reform agenda and amnesty" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/25/obamas-immigration-reform-agenda-may-lead-amnesty/?page=all

Before leaving on his 17-day vacation in Hawaii, President Obama declared that one of his top priorities for 2014 will be immigration reform, with amnesty. He knows that congressional Republicans feel pressure to do something to woo Hispanic voters.Mr. Obama will leverage those political forces for the midterm elections, even though he doesn’t even enforce the existing immigration laws.

Mr. Obama held a rare press conference Friday before hopping on Air Force One for the direct flight to Honolulu. It was in an attempt to buck up his plummeting poll numbers after a year of failures.“Immigration reform, probably the biggest thing that I wanted to get done this year, we saw progress. It passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote,” he asserted.

Boehner on board

Boehner is on board for incremental immigration reformJager 1-2 [Elliott, Newsmas, "Boehner: Immigration reform will be4 tackled one step at a time" http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/immigration-reform-boehner-tackled/2014/01/02/id/544722

House Speaker John Boehner is expected to back step-by-step measures to revamp the country's immigration laws in a way that non-tea party conservatives can live with, The New York Times reported. He previously signaled that he would take positions — on the budget and immigration — opposed by the tea party faction saying that it had "lost all credibility."

Boehner is still against the Senate's immigration bill as too sweeping a way to address the presence of all 11 million illegal immigrants, according to the Times.

"The American people are skeptical of big, comprehensive bills, and frankly, they should be," he said. "The only way to make sure immigration reform works this time is to address these complicated issues one step at a time.

"I think doing so will give the American people confidence that we're dealing with these issues in a thoughtful way and a deliberative way," Boehner said.

Boehner lately hired immigration specialist Rebecca Tallent who had worked for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an advocate of immigration reform.

Boehner wants to get an immigration bill done this yearO'Shea 1-2 [James, staff writer, Irish Central, "House speaker Boehner now said to embrace immigration reform" http://www.irishcentral.com/news/House-Speaker-Boehner-now-said-to-embrace-immigration-reform-238430711.html

House Speaker John Boehner is ready to embrace immigration reform in 2014 The New York Times reports, though exactly how far he intends to go is unclear.

The Times point out that in recent weeks Boehner has hired Senator John McCain’s staffer Rebecca Tallent who has extensive expertise on immigration reform.

There are an estimated 50,000 undocumented Irish in America who could be positively impacted by immigration reform. A comprehensive reform bill that passed the senate also has a provision for 10,000 Irish work visas a year.

Boehner’s move is seen as significant, In addition, before Christmas Boehner lashed out at Tea Party critics, signaling a move to the center

The Times quotes aides to Boehner who say he is committed to “step by step” moves to change immigration laws.

Other House Republican members seem willing to” fast-track legalization for agricultural laborers, increase the number of visas for high-tech workers and provide an opportunity for young immigrants who came to the country illegally as children to become American citizens.”

Such a bill would then go to a senate/house conference where many of the comprehensive reform proposals could be included.

Observers say the only reason for hiring Tallent is Boehner’s desire to make a deal this year.

A/T NO Political Capital

Obama still has political capital, but time is running out. He can use the State of the Union as a jumpstart to pass immigration reformHohmann 1/1 [James, Politico, "As D.C. turns: 14 dates to watch in 2014" http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/2014-14-dates-to-watch-101627.html?hp=f3

Obama becomes more of a lame duck with each annual update to Congress, and, faced with strong Republican opposition, it’s likely many of the priorities he outlines will go nowhere. Still, the State of the Union is an important platform for any president, and this is a chance for Obama to convey how much of his diminishing political capital he will invest in pursuing immigration reform, making the health care law work and other priorities.

Budget deal gives Obama enough political capital to pass immigration reformPolitical Wire 12-13 ["Budget vote gives immigration reform advocates hope" http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/12/13/budget_vote_gives_immigration_reform_advocates_hope.html

The Hill: "Both sides in the immigration debate are watching Speaker John Boehner closely after Thursday evening's emphatic House vote in favor of a bipartisan budget deal. The calculus is clear in the minds of immigration-reform advocates. They believe that Boehner wants to get some kind of deal done on immigration, and any development that replenishes his political capital helps their cause."

Top Priority

Immigration reform is at top of docketDallas News 12-27 ["Immigration reform's pathway to defeat" http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20131227-editorial-immigration-reforms-pathway-to-defeat.ece

Comprehensive immigration reform is heading back to center stage on Capitol Hill and — dare we say it? — concerted action in 2014. Leaders on both sides of the aisle support it and are keenly aware that the election-swaying Hispanic vote is on the line.

Immigration reform is top priority this yearPublic News Service 12/30 ["Immigration Reform Supporters: 'positive signs" headed into 2014" http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2013-12-30/immigrant-issues/immigration-reform-supporters-positive-signs-headed-into-2014/a36538-1

And, while Speaker Boehner has said immigration reform would have to wait until next year, Wallis said there are signs Republicans are ready to act. "I hear Republican leaders - Goodlatte from Judiciary - saying this will be a top priority in 2014," Wallis said. "John Boehner has hired a really talented aide to help with immigration - she knows the topic well, and she's for reform."

Immigration reform is high on the agendaAP 12/27 ["Obama's 2014 agenda could be a race against the clock" http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/12/obamas-2014-agenda-could-be-a-race-against-the-clock.html

High on the agenda for the start of the year is a renewed push on immigration. Bipartisan consensus about the need for action on immigration in the wake of the 2012 presidential election gave way in 2013 to opposition from conservative House Republicans. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has started offering subtle signs he'll put more weight behind the issue despite continued resistance from the tea party.

Impacts

Key to Economy

Immigration is crucial to job creation Dearie & Geduldig 12-29 [ John, executive vice president at the Financial Services Forum, Courtney vice president of global regulatory affairs at Standard & Poor's, Wall Street Journal, "more immigration means more jobs for Americans" http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303290904579278173121185300

We hope so. Of all the reasons to support immigration reform, none is more important than the critical role it would play in helping end America's jobs crisis. Despite the encouraging news that 203,000 jobs were created in November and the unemployment rate fell to 7%, 11 million Americans remain unemployed while another 7.6 million are working part time involuntarily. November was the 43rd month in a row in which more unemployed Americans left the workforce discouraged than found jobs.

Some oppose immigration reform out of fear that more immigrants will take American jobs and make the jobs crisis worse. Such fears are unfounded. Research has repeatedly shown that more open immigration policies would create more jobs for more Americans.

In part that is because immigrants are more entrepreneurial and innovative than native-born Americans—a fact that shouldn't shock or offend anyone. To immigrate requires being willing to pick up one's life and move, often at great personal and financial risk, to a different country, with a different culture and often a different language—a profoundly entrepreneurial act. People willing to do so remain highly innovative once they get here.

Immigrants represent 13% of the U.S. population but account for nearly 20% of small businesses owners. Immigrant-owned small businesses employed nearly five million Americans in 2010 and generated an estimated $776 billion in revenue, according to a June 2012 study from the Fiscal Policy Institute. The Partnership for a New American Economy, a bipartisan group of more than 500 business leaders and mayors, has found that more than 40% of Fortune FT.T +8.00% 500 companies were founded by immigrants or a child of immigrants.

Immigrants also launch half of the nation's top startups, and research by the Kauffman Foundation has established that startups account for virtually all net new job creation. A study by the National Foundation for American Policy found that of the top 50 venture capital-backed companies in the U.S. last year, 23 have at least one foreign-born founder, while 37 have at least one immigrant in a major management position. Intel, Google, GOOG +1.01% Yahoo YHOO +0.60% and eBay EBAY +1.58% are a few of the American companies started by the foreign-born.

Immigrants were involved in more than 75% of the nearly 1,500 patents awarded at the nation's top 10 research universities in 2011—and nearly all the patents were in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, according to the Partnership for a New American

Economy. Foreign-born innovators contributed to 87% of the patents filed in semiconductor-device manufacturing, 84% in information technology, 83% in pulse or digital communications, and 79% in pharmaceutical drugs or drug compounds.

The net result of immigrants' innovation and entrepreneurship is job creation. This effect is most pronounced for immigrants with advanced degrees from U.S. universities working in science and technology fields. According to a study by the American Enterprise Institute, between 2000 and 2007 each group of 100 foreign-born workers with such backgrounds was associated with 262 additional American jobs.

Immigration reform is necessary to boost the economyHill 12-30 [Selena, Latino Post "Immigration reform 2013 news: Studies show immigrants help boost the US economy, create more American Jobs" http://www.latinopost.com/articles/2591/20131230/immigration-reform-2013-news-studies-show-immigrants-help-boost-the-us-economy-create-more-american-jobs.htm

Research proves that immigration and economic progress go hand in hand. Contrary to fears that immigrants will take American jobs and make unemployment even worse, studies show that mending our broken U.S. immigration system would actually help end America's job crisis.

One reason why open immigration policies would create more jobs for more Americans is because immigrants tend to be more entrepreneurial and innovative than native-born Americans, and are twice as likely to start businesses.

While immigrants make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, they account for nearly 20 percent of small businesses owners and are responsible for more than 25 percent of all new business creation and related job growth, the National Journal reports.

According to a 2012 study from the Fiscal Policy Institute, immigrant-owned small businesses employed nearly five million Americans in 2010 and generated an estimated $776 billion in revenue. Plus, the Partnership for a New American states that more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or first generation Americans.

In addition, immigrants are also responsible for launching half of the nation's top startups which account for virtually all net new job creation, according to the Kauffman Foundation. In 2011, immigrants received more than 75 percent of almost 1,500 patents awarded at the nation's top 10 research universities, while most of the patents were in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Tim Rowe, founder of the Cambridge Innovation Center in Cambridge, Mass., told the Wall Street Journal that "our immigration policy is built around the notion that we have to protect

American jobs. But we've got it backward. We're threatening the creation of new jobs by preventing these incredibly talented entrepreneurs from overseas from coming here and building their businesses here."Rob Lilleness, president and chief executive of software developer Medio Systems in Seattle, Wash., added that immigration restrictions often force new companies to outsource jobs. "We have to look at India, or Argentina, or Vietnam, or China because there's not enough H-1B visas," he said.One of the chief concerns of the Republican Party is to focus on boosting the economy and creating American jobs. Yet, by failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform for yet another year, House Republicans may not only be hurting immigrants, but they may also be hurting the country's economy.

Passing immigration reform is critical to the economyU.S. Law Center Attorneys 12-20 [CTpost.com "Immigration reform: A jobs plan & fair reform" http://www.ctpost.com/opinion/article/Immigration-Reform-A-Jobs-Plan-Fair-Reform-5082825.php

Imagine, in this moment of hesitant economic recovery, a federal jobs law that would put 120,000 people to work every year. Imagine it increasing the annual incomes of Connecticut families by $160 million and breathing entrepreneurial energy into high-tech startups like etouches in Norwalk and corporations like Deloitte and Starwood in Stamford. Imagine if that legislation also dramatically cut our deficit.

Too good to be true? Far from it. It's there for the taking.

Even in a House of Representatives frozen in dysfunction, comprehensive immigration reform, which passed the Senate in June by a 68-32 margin, would easily pass the House if it were brought to a vote.

The economic benefits of well-regulated immigration are not controversial. They are the story of America, and many of us have lived them. Foreign-born Americans are twice as likely to start a small business as the native born. Think of your local restaurants, car washes, and delis. Two in five companies on the Fortune 500 were started by immigrants or their children. Think of Andy Grove of Intel and Sergey Brin of Google.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) believes that passage of immigration reform would add $1.4 trillion to our GDP in the next ten years.

The long-term strength of Social Security and Medicare would be improved by the expanded legal workforce and youth of our immigrant population. The CBO estimates that the Senate immigration bill would cut deficits by $200 billion over 10 years.

Prevents Russia & China war

A strong economy is key to relations with both China and RussiaBennett 01 (Richard Bennett is a strategist at Armed Forces Intelligence, the international research organization, The Express, As America's Relations with Russia and China Take a Nosedive...; is the World on the Brink of a New Cold War? April 12, 2001 Lexis)

With the evident cooling of relations between America and both Russia and China the hopes for greater understanding and co-operation in the new post-cold war world have been buried . A mere

10 years after the collapse of much of the communist world, confrontation and distrust have returned to haunt an international community already riven with economic collapse, conflict, famine and the growing threat of severe climatic changes. The new US administration already finds itself confronted with a tit-for-tat spy expulsion feud with Vladimir Putin's newly resurgent Russia, the US Navy's EP-3 "spy plane" stand-off with an increasingly aggressive China, the growing threat of war in the Middle East and the re-establishment of anti-Western alliances. There are in addition a number of other potential crisis areas, including world environmental issues where President

Bush has already moved strongly out of step with much of the international community by refusing to ratify agreements on cutting the emissions of greenhouse

gases. He also faces a domestic economic slow-down that threatens the stability of US industry and Wall Street. The old cold war certainties have been replaced by an uncertain and confused international situation. Regions once neatly divided into "them and us" are now beset with ever-changing alliances and re-alignments. Both China and now, increasingly, Russia see their long-term interests being served more by a confrontationalist attitude towards the US than by begging for crumbs from the tables of the rich and privileged. Both China and Russia wish to establish themselves as countries whose views are listened to and whose influence is enhanced rather than simply ignored - or, worse still, actively undermined. They want

their position as regional, if not world, superpowers to be respected. The US, on the other hand, can see little value in allowing its status as the world's single global superpower reduced in any meaningful way simply to satisfy the largely internal needs of two nations that are quite unable to challenge the US economically or militarily. Russia has failed to see the large-scale Western investment and international acceptance expected by Yeltsin and the economic reformers following the overthrow of the

communist system. The economic benefits promised by the West during the political turmoil of the early Nineties have simply failed to materialise for the vast majority of Russian citizens. Instead, Russia has been stripped of its superpower status and most of its influence; while the US has tended to ignore the feelings of this - temporarily at least - militarily impotent nation, particularly over some of its traditional areas of interest such as Serbia and Iraq. The missile attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the bombing of Serbia in 1999 - made in the sure knowledge of China's inability to retaliate - angered that nation's government far more than the West was prepared to accept or even, such is the intolerance of the powerful, recognise as having any justification. China's eventual response was the hard line now being taken over the spy plane forced to land on Hainan island. Though China has finally agreed to release the crew, the countries' mutual suspicion has helped turn an unfortunate incident into a potential international crisis. The demands for an apology over a surveillance flight made in international airspace, the determination to hold the crew of 24 captive for as long as possible and the virtual dismantling of this super-secret aircraft on the tarmac of Lingshui airbase in full view of US intelligence satellites has left little doubt in the minds of US analysts that China has every intention of using this unexpected intelligence and diplomatic windfall to extract as much political advantage out of the crisis as possible. The international humiliation of the US, and President Bush in particular, is a bonus that President Jiang Zemin will not easily forgo. There are problems in other areas of the world. Cracks are developing in the united front shown by the international community since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the resulting Gulf War in 1991. These are caused in part by US support for Israel, particularly in the light of an increasingly more aggressive military response to the continuing violence of the Palestinian Intifida and in part by the reaffirmation of the determination to both maintain sanctions and military pressure on Iraq in a final attempt to rid the area of Saddam Hussein. The new US administration will need to tread carefully and think long and hard over its response to these events.

Diplomatic policy may well have to be re-assessed and defence strengthened. The international "warming" that followed the end of the cold war has been put in reverse, certainly in the short term, and the world is now witnessing the dawn of a new age of uncertainty .

Growth solves their impact—interdependence checks conflict:Griswold 2007 - director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies (4/20, Daniel, “Trade, Democracy and Peace”, http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)

A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. As national economies become more intertwined with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war .

Prevents War:General

Economic downturn causes conflicts to erupt across the globeAuslin and Lachman, 2009 (Michael, AEI's [American Enterprise Institute] director of Japan Studies, was an associate professor of history and senior research fellow at the MacMillan Center, and Desmond, AEI fellow, former deputy director in the International Monetary Fund's Policy Development and Review Department, “The Global Economy Unravels” Forbes, 3-6, http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/06/global-economy-unravels-opinions-contributors-g20.html

What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse . The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the

adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs.

Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been

predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely . Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country.

Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the

U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States,

unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang. One has to hope that ahead of the next G-20

summit in London this April, global policymakers will get real about the gravity of the present global economic and political situation. For only with a coordinated and forceful economic policy response is there any hope of extricating ourselves from what is turning out to be the most serious global economic slump since the Great Depression.

Hegemony

Skilled workers key to US economic and military primacy: JOHN RATZENBERGER, 7/31/2010 (Foundation for Fair Civil Justice board member, “Skilled workers key to state, national economies,” http://newsok.com/skilled-workers-key-to-state-national-economies/article/3480964, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)

A cultural shift has taken place in America that's tragically made the skilled worker a thing of the past. Our media has glorified celebrity at the expense of our nation's basic needs, and America will reap the whirlwind within the next

two decades. At stake is nothing less than our long-term economic vitality and national security .

Skilled workers key to US military hegemony:JOHN RATZENBERGER, 7/31/2010 (Foundation for Fair Civil Justice board member, “Skilled workers key to state, national economies,” http://newsok.com/skilled-workers-key-to-state-national-economies/article/3480964, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)

In my interviews with employers across the nation, I hear the same story: Business owners are desperate for skilled workers. Many are reaching out to local schools to attract young people into the trades. Despite the offer of good pay and benefits, the noble skills that involve working with your hands and mind don't hold the same appeal as they did in decades past. Some businesses are

considering moving their operations (and jobs) overseas. We're experiencing the loss of the once-vaunted edge that America enjoyed. ¶ From aviation to energy, our national security is at risk. In order to

maintain the world's most sophisticated military , we must produce systems, parts and hardware in America. Without domestic manufacturing operations, critical component work has been moved offshore as a stop-gap measure.

Collapse of hegemony and competitiveness causes nuclear war Khalilzad 11 Zalmay, the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to 1992, February 8, “The Economy and National Security; If we don’t get our economic house in order, we risk a new era of multi-polarity,” online: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzadWe face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers

continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United S tates and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition

among major powers , increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. ¶ The stakes are high. In

modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of

U.S. leadership . By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable , with their competitive

dynamics result ing in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international

systems produced both world wars.¶ American retrenchment could have devastating

consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to

balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict . Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate

the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.¶ As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition . Beijing’s economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. China’s strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive territorial claims — and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression.

Econ Impact – Warming

A) Economic crisis blocks solutions to global warming:

Michael Graham Richard, 2/6/2008 (“Counter-Point: 4 Reasons Why Recession is BAD for the Environment,” http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/4_reasons_recession _bad_environment.php, Accessed 11/7/2012, rwg)

Thirdly, there's less money going into the stock markets and bank loans are harder to get, which means that many small firms and startups working on the breakthrough green technologies of tomorrow can have trouble getting funds or can even go bankrupt, especially if their clients or backers

decide to make cuts.¶ Fourthly, during economic crises, voters want the government to appear to be doing something about the economy (even if it's government that screwed things up in the first place). They'll accept all kinds of measures and laws, including those that aren't good for the environment . Massive

corn subsidies anyone? Don't even think about progress on global warming ...

B) Warming leads to extinctionTickell, 8-11-2008(Oliver, Climate Researcher, The Gaurdian, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)

We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise

counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean , in the immortal words that

Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level

rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and

industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become

extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir

David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement.

The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

Affirmative

No immigration reform in the quo. Recent discourse is empty rhetoric Hardaldson 1-2 [Hrafnkell, PoliticsUSA.com, "Don't expect 2014 to bring any meanful change in immigration reform" http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/02/expect-2014-bring-meaningful-change-immigration-reform.html

News outlets are talking about John Boehner and immigration reform. Don’t kid yourself. In The New York Times we find that Boehner’s hints provide “new hope that 2014 might be the year that a bitterly divided Congress reaches a political compromise to overhaul the sprawling system.” You do remember what has happened each and every time Boehner has tried to do anything, right? The extremists yank the carpet out from beneath him. Boehner cries, blah, blah, blah.

Immigration reform will not pass. Midterms will undermine supportWalters 1-2 [Anne, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, "Choppy waters ahead for Obama, Congress in 2014" Lexis

The November 4 elections make major action on potentiallycontroversial legislation, such as immigration reform, more unlikelyas lawmakers focus on their campaigns and seek to avoid alienatingvoters.

Immigration reform will not pass. Primaries and republican backlash will prevent passageTomasky 1-2 [Michael, Dailybeast.com, "Immigration, round 2: Still a reach" http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/02/immigration-round-2-still-a-reach.html

But more broadly, this is going to be a year, is it not, of continual struggle between the conservatives and the radicals, culminating in the handful of primary elections in which radical challengers are running against conservative incumbents. So I don't see much reason to think that any immigration reform will be anything other than ferociously controversial within the GOP. The only question now is whether Boehner has the onions to sidestep the radicals.

Yes, he said last year that they'd "lost all credibility," a phrase on which many are placing a great deal of optimism. But we've heard that Beltway optimism before. I'm still skeptical that he'd want an immigration bill to pass with the backing of only a minority of his caucus, because it would infuriate and energize the rabid wing of the base in advance of the by-elections. So maybe the answer is a lame-duck session--he passes immigration with 180 Democratic votes and 40 Republican ones and then says "Thanks, I'm retiring." I suppose there'd be more disgraceful ways for him to go.

Unemployment Benefits

Uniqueness

Unemployment Benefits will pass. Democrats are pressuring House RepublicansHoover 1-2 [Kent, Washington Bureau Chief, Bizjournals.com "4 things to watch in Washington as new year begins" http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/news-wire/2014/01/02/4-things-to-watch-in-washington-as-new.html?page=2

The Senate will vote next week on legislation to extend unemployment benefits for Americans who have been without a job for longer than six months. This assistance for the long-term unemployed expired Dec. 31, leaving 1.3 million Americans in the cold.The House, however, has been reluctant to pass an extension unless it's paid for by cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.

Democrats hammered Republicans as being heartless over the holidays -- you could practically hear "Blue Christmas" playing in the background as Democrats spoke about this issue. Now you'll hear lots of "unhappy new year" rhetoric.

Republicans will face lots of pressure to go along with this extension, and they'll face another populist challenge as Democrats push for an increase in the minimum wage. President Barack Obama and Democrats plan to push for legislation to phase up the federal minimum wage, which now stands at $7.25 an hour, to $10.10 an hour by 2015. Plus, Democrats plan to make the minimum wage a big issue on the state level as well, including putting the issue on the November ballot in some states.

Unemployment benefits will pass on MondayFox News 1-1 ["Reid: Senate will vote on jobless benefits when members return Monday" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/01/reid-senate-will-vote-on-jobless-benefits-when-members-return-monday/

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says his chamber will vote Monday on extending long-term jobless benefits and that he plans to outline his 2014 legislative agenda in the coming days.

The benefits were not included in a two-year budget deal Congress reached in December, cutting off unemployment checks for 1.3 million Americans out of work longer than six months.

Reid, D-Nevada, is optimistic that the bipartisan legislation in the Senate will get enough support from members of both parties to win passage in the Democrat-controlled chamber.

Unemployment benefits will pass in the quo. Just enough votes in the HouseBaragona 1-2 [Justin, Politics USA, "Obama turns up heat and pressures Boehner to restore unemployment benefits" http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/02/white-house-aggressively-pushes-jobless-benefits-places-ball-boehners-court.html

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will bring this up for a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session on January 6th. It is expected to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate.There will be at least a handful of Republicans that vote for it as well. It all depends on whether or not Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) will bring this up for a vote or not. Obviously, all the Democrats in the House will vote for this. You also have to feel that there are a number of non-Tea Party members of the Republican caucus that don’t want to explain to their constituents why they let some of them suffer needlessly.

Unemployment Extension will pass with Senate pressureKlimas 12-27 [Jacquline, Washington Times, "Passing unemployment benefits extension in the Senate will put pressure on the House" http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/dec/27/menendez-unemployment-benefits-extension-senate/

Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat, said being able to pass a short-term unemployment insurance extension in the Senate may put the pressure on Speaker John A. Boehner to hold a vote in the House.

“The pressure of the nation’s eyes will be on them,” he said Friday on MSNBC.Sen. Jack Reed, Rhode Island Democrat, announced Thursday that he’ll introduce a 3-month extension to unemployment benefits that will expire Saturday when Congress returns to Washington in January. While he is introducing the bill with a Republican co-sponsor, some Republicans have said they would only consider an extension if it’s paid for in other parts of the budget, which Mr. Reed’s extension isn’t.

Economy

Failing to extend unemployment rates will undermine economic growthTrumbull 12-28 [mark, CS Monitor, "Unemployment benefits expiring: Should special help continue beyond 26 weeks?" http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/1228/Unemployment-benefits-expiring-Should-special-help-continue-beyond-26-weeks-video

Economic growth could be slower without the extended benefits. In a recent report, White House economists estimated that by removing income from the economy, failing to extend the benefits would cost 240,000 jobs in 2014. The report also cited estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and JP Morgan that gross domestic product (GDP) would be 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points lower.

Against this backdrop, Gene Sperling, director of the president’s National Economic Council, issued a statement Friday supporting bipartisan legislation to continue the extended benefits.

“Never before have we abruptly cut off emergency unemployment insurance when we faced this level of long-term unemployment and it would be a blow to these families and our economy,” Mr. Sperling said.

Failure to extend unemployment rates will undermine economic growthRobinson 12-30 [Eugene, opinion writer, Washington Post, "Unemployment benefits, the cruelest cut of all" http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-unemployment-benefits-the-cruelest-cut-of-all/2013/12/30/511c57e2-7198-11e3-8b3f-b1666705ca3b_story.html

In terms of economic policy, this makes no sense. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending long-term unemployment for a full year would cost about $25 billion, which would add to the deficit. But the measure would boost economic growth by two-tenths of 1 percent and create 200,000 jobs. Given that interest rates are at historical lows, and given that the imperative right now is to create growth and jobs, refusing to extend the benefits is counterproductive as well as cruel.

Obama pushing UB

Obama pushing unemployment benefits as a top priority.Rucker 12-27 [Philip, Washington Post "Obama urges Congress to pass emergency extension of unemployment benefits" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/27/obama-urges-congress-to-pass-emergency-extension-of-unemployment-benefits/

President Obama briefly interrupted his holiday vacation here Friday to urge Congress to pass an emergency extension of unemployment benefits.With roughly 1.3 million out-of-work Americans set to lose their unemployment insurance starting Saturday, the White House said that Obama placed separate telephone calls Friday to Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) to offer his support for their proposal to extend benefits for three months.

"The President said he was pleased that they were working in a bipartisan fashion to address a problem that will directly affect 1.3 million Americans during the holidays and have a negative impact on the nation's economic growth and job creation," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement. "The President said his administration would, as it has for several weeks now, push Congress to act promptly and in bipartisan fashion to address this urgent economic priority."

Obama will use political capital to pass Unemployment benefitsXinhua News 1-1 ["White house urges extension of unemployment benefits" http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-01/02/c_125943806.htm

WASHINGTON, Jan. 1 (Xinhua) -- The White House on Wednesday urged lawmakers to extend unemployment benefits for millions of unemployed Americans, its latest pitch to ratchet up pressure for Congress to pass legislation to renew the benefits.

"This New Year's Day, there is likely less joy and more fear and distress in the homes of 1.3 million Americans who this week have seen their unemployment insurance suddenly cut off -- a vital lifeline that these Americans depend on as they fight to find a job," Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, said in a statement.

"There would be no better New Year's resolution for Congress to make today than to commit to making the first new legislation for the new year the restoration of emergency unemployment insurance for those who have this week just been cut off," said Sperling.

Top of docket

Extending unemployment benefits is primary concern for CongressGreen 1-2 [Joshua, Businessweek, "1.3 million people lost unemployment benefits. It could get ugly" http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-02/emergency-unemployment-benefits-ended-dec-dot-28

When Congress reconvenes on Jan. 6, one of the first issues it will take up is whether to renew an emergency federal unemployment program that expired on Dec. 28, cutting off 1.3 million jobless workers. Enacted in 2008 at the start of the recession, it provided up to 47 weeks of benefits for those still looking for work when their state unemployment benefits ran out. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he’ll try to pass a temporary extension, but most Republicans have balked at the $25 billion-a-year cost. If the program isn’t revived, the impact could be significant—not just for the 1.3 million people losing a vital lifeline but on the broader economy.

Democrats pushing UB

Unemployment benefits are democrats top priority Koenig 12-28 [Bryan, CNN, "Unemployment benefits exxpire, Dems vow tofight on" http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/28/unemployment-benefits-expire-dems-vow-to-fight-on/

Long-term unemployment benefits for 1.3 million Americans expired Saturday after Congress failed to pass an extension. Reinstating those benefits is expected to be one of the first priorities for congressional Democrats in the new year.

“Extending unemployment insurance is the right thing to do for millions of Americans who are trying to support their families,” Democratic National Committee chairwoman and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement Saturday. “What makes matters worse, the loss of benefits comes just a few days after the holidays.”

A/T Unemployment low

Unemployment rate doesn’t represent what the job marketGreen 1-2 [Joshua, Businessweek, "1.3 million people lost unemployment benefits. It could get ugly" http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-02/emergency-unemployment-benefits-ended-dec-dot-28

“The decline in the unemployment rate gives you a very limited view of what’s going on in our labor market,” says John Quinterno, founder of South by North Strategies, an economic research firm in Chapel Hill, N.C. “Year over year, the number of employed people in North Carolina ticked up by 6,082, while the unemployed fell by 101,901. That means the labor force contracted by 95,009. So the improvement has not necessarily been driven by more people going to work and is actually being driven to a large degree by people leaving the labor force.” In October the state’s labor force participation rate hit a 37-year low. One benefit of unemployment insurance is that “it has an anchoring effect,” says Quinterno, “because you have to be looking for work” to qualify for benefits.

A/T Quo will increase jobs

Unemployment rate will not actually drop. The numbers get manipulated Business week 1/2 ["Ahead of the Bell: US unemployment benefits" http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-01-02/ahead-of-the-bell-us-unemployment-benefits

Economists predict that the benefit cut-off will cause the unemployment rate to fall by as much as a quarter of percentage point in early 2014. But they worry that the drop will likely occur because many of the former recipients will give up on their job searches, which are required in order to receive benefits. Those out of work are only counted as unemployed by the government if they are actively searching for work.

Aff Answers

Extending unemployment benefits will not help the economyFolks 1-1 [Jeffrey, American Thinker "Extending unemployment benefits: Obama's urgent political priority" http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/extending_unemployment_benefits_obamas_urgent_political_priority.html

The actual effect on the overall economy would be closer to a 0.1% reduction in GDP. And how is it that paying 1.3 million Americans not to work creates jobs? That one has never been explained. Every respectable economist I've consulted states that when unemployment benefits run out, a greater number of workers return to the labor force.

Turn: unemployment benefits increase unemployment Tanner 1-1 [Michael, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, National Review Online, "Obama's 2014 war on the poor" http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367333/obamas-2014-war-poor-michael-tanner

Take the extension of unemployment insurance. Labor economists may disagree on the extent to which unemployment benefits increase or extend spells of unemployment, but the fact that they increase the duration of unemployment and/or unemployment levels is not especially controversial. As Martin Feldstein and Daniel Altman have pointed out, “the most obvious and most thoroughly researched effect of the existing UI systems on unemployment is the increase in the duration of the unemployment spells.”

In fact, even Paul Krugman, in the days when he was an actual economist rather than a partisan polemicist, wrote in his economics textbook:

Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of “Eurosclerosis,” the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

President Obama’s former Treasury secretary Larry Summers estimated in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics that “the existence of unemployment insurance almost doubles the number of unemployment spells lasting more than three months.”

It’s not hard to understand why. Incentives matter. Workers are less likely to look for work or accept less than ideal jobs as long as they are protected from the full consequences of being unemployed. That is not to say that anyone is getting rich off unemployment or that

unemployed people are lazy. It’s just simple human nature that people are a little less motivated as long as there is a check coming in. Indeed, research shows that, in the weeks just before benefits run out, workers spend more hours looking for a job and are as much as three times more likely to find jobs.

Iran

1NC

Iran Sanctions will not pass in the quoRajabova 12-28 [Sara, Azernews "U.S. not likely to impose new sanctions on Iran" http://www.azernews.az/analysis/62959.html

There is a struggle between the White House and Congress, for a while, on imposing new sanctions on Iran if it fails to conclude a nuclear agreement with world powers.

The U.S. Congress introduced legislation on new sanctions on Iran last week, which was sharply criticized by the Iranian officials.

However, the U.S. President Barack Obama urged the Congress to refrain from imposing new sanctions against Iran, saying these sanctions could scuttle the negotiations.Obama warned he would veto a bill imposing new sanctions on Iran, because it could sink a final deal over Tehran's nuclear program. He said he would support tougher sanctions later if Iran violates the agreement.

The author of book "The Evolution of Macroeconomic Theory and Policy", professor of economics at U.S. Northeastern University, Kamran Dadkhah shared his views on this issue with AzerNews.

Dadkhah said currently, there is little chance of imposing new significant sanctions on Iran.

Insert plan costs political capital

Obama will spend political capital on Iran.Wsj 1-1 ["Time for a big-league president: The antidote to global chaos is American leadership" http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304591604579292743396493058

Because polls say Americans are in an isolationist mood, Mr. Obama won't spend political capital outside the country—Ukraine, Syria, Asia. He wants to spend what capital he has left consolidating internal federal authority. The Iran nuclear deal is an obsession, similar to promoting windmills after the fracking revolution.

Labott and Carter 1-1 [Elise and Chelsea, Cnn.com "US: Deal to impolment Iran nuclear deal near" http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/31/world/meast/iran-nuclear-deal/Washington (CNN) -- The United States dismissed a report that an agreement had been reached between Iran and world powers to begin implementing a deal that requires Tehran to limit its nuclear program.

The announcement followed a report in state-run Iranian media that a deal had been reached in negotiations between Tehran and the six world powers, including the United States, to begin implementing the agreement in late January,

"We've made progress in our discussions, and the teams have taken a few outstanding points back to capitals," State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf.

New Iran sanctions will put the US on a path towards warJoffe & Richman 1-2 [Marc & Shelldon, The Guardian "Dear Congress: Don't sabotage our chance to end the cold war with Iran" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/02/congress-iran-sanctions-sabotage-agreement

In January, congressional Democrats and Republicans who are united in their skepticism of – if not outright opposition to – the interim Iran nuclear deal will attempt to pass a new round of economic sanctions against the Iranian people. This move would very likely scuttle the current six-month agreement, end negotiations toward a comprehensive settlement, and put us back on the path to war.

Nuclear Iran kills U.S. hegemony – emboldens enemies and weakens alliancesTakeyh and Lindsay, 10[James M. Lindsay, Senior Vice President, Director of Studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg Chair, Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies “After Iran Gets the Bomb Containment and Its Complications,” March/April 2010, http://www.cfr.org/publication/22182/after_iran_gets_the_bomb.html]

The dangers of Iran's entry into the nuclear club are well known: emboldened by this development, Tehran might multiply its attempts at subverting its neighbors and encouraging terrorism against the United States and Israel; the risk of both conventional and nuclear war in the Middle East would escalate; more states in the region might also want to become nuclear powers; the geopolitical balance in the Middle East would be reordered; and broader efforts to stop the spread of nuclear

weapons would be undermined. The advent of a nuclear Iran—even one that is satisfied with having only the materials and infrastructure necessary to assemble a bomb on short notice rather than a nuclear arsenal—would be seen as a major diplomatic defeat for the United States. Friends and foes would openly question the U.S. government's power and resolve to shape events in the Middle East. Friends would respond by distancing themselves from Washington; foes would challenge U.S. policies more aggressively.Such a scenario can be avoided, however. Even if Washington fails to prevent Iran from going nuclear, it can contain and mitigate the consequences of Iran's nuclear defiance. It should make clear to Tehran that acquiring the bomb will not produce the benefits it anticipates but isolate and weaken the regime. Washington will need to lay down clear "redlines" defining what it considers to be unacceptable behavior—and be willing to use military force if Tehran crosses them. It will also need to reassure its friends and allies in the Middle East that it remains firmly committed to preserving the balance of power in the region.

Containing a nuclear Iran would not be easy. It would require considerable diplomatic skill and political will on the part

of the United States. And it could fail. A nuclear Iran may choose to flex its muscles and test U.S. resolve. Even under the best circumstances, the opaque nature of decision-making in Tehran could complicate Washington's efforts to deter it. Thus, it would be far preferable if Iran stopped—or were stopped—before it became a nuclear power. Current efforts to limit Iran's nuclear program must be pursued with vigor. Economic pressure on Tehran must be maintained. Military options to prevent Iran from going nuclear must not be taken off the table.

No alternative to American hegemony – collapse causes transition wars, economic collapse, global instability and destroys all international cooperation – no other global power can fill the voidBrzezinski, Former National Security Advisor, 12[Zbigniew, January/February 2012, Foreign Policy, “After America: How does the world look in an age of U.S. decline? Dangerously unstable.” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/after_america, accessed 7/5/13, WD]

Not so long ago, a high-ranking Chinese official, who obviously had concluded that America's decline and China's rise were both inevitable, noted in a burst of candor to a senior U.S. official: "But, please, let America not decline too quickly." Although the inevitability of the Chinese leader's expectation is still far from certain, he was right to be cautious when looking forward to America's demise. For if America falters, the world is unlikely to be dominated by a single preeminent

successor -- not even China . International uncertainty , increased tension among global

competitors, and even outright chaos would be far more likely outcomes.

While a sudden, massive crisis of the American system -- for instance, another financial crisis

-- would produce a fast-moving chain reaction leading to global political and economic

disorder , a steady drift by America into increasingly pervasive decay or endlessly widening warfare with Islam would be unlikely to produce, even by 2025, an effective global successor. No single power will be ready by then to exercise the role that the world, upon the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, expected the United States to play: the leader of a new, globally cooperative world order. More probable would be a protracted phase of rather inconclusive realignments of both global and regional power, with no grand winners and many more losers, in a setting of international uncertainty and even of potentially fatal risks to global

well-being. Rather than a world where dreams of democracy flourish, a Hobbesian world of enhanced national security based on varying fusions of authoritarianism, nationalism, and religion could ensue. The leaders of the world's second-rank powers, among them India, Japan, Russia, and some European countries, are already assessing the potential impact of U.S. decline on their respective national interests. The Japanese, fearful of an assertive China dominating the Asian mainland, may be thinking of closer links with Europe. Leaders in India and Japan may be considering closer political and even military cooperation in case America falters and China rises. Russia, while perhaps engaging in wishful thinking (even schadenfreude) about America's uncertain prospects, will almost certainly have its eye on the independent states of the former Soviet Union. Europe, not yet cohesive, would likely be pulled in several directions: Germany and Italy toward Russia because of commercial interests, France and insecure Central Europe in favor of a politically tighter European Union, and Britain toward manipulating a balance within the EU while preserving its special relationship with a declining United States. Others may

move more rapidly to carve out their own regional spheres: Turkey in the area of the old Ottoman Empire, Brazil in the Southern Hemisphere, and so forth. None of these countries, however, will have the requisite combination of economic, financial, technological, and military power even to consider inheriting America's leading role.China, invariably mentioned as America's prospective successor, has an impressive imperial lineage and a strategic tradition of carefully calibrated patience, both of which have been critical to its overwhelmingly successful, several-thousand-year-long history. China thus prudently accepts the existing international system, even if it does not view the prevailing hierarchy as permanent. It recognizes that success depends not on the system's dramatic collapse but on its evolution toward a gradual redistribution of power. Moreover, the basic reality is that China is not yet ready to assume in full America's role in the world. Beijing's leaders themselves have repeatedly emphasized that on every important measure of development, wealth, and power, China will still be a modernizing and developing state several decades from now, significantly behind not only the United States but also Europe and Japan in the major per capita indices of modernity and national power. Accordingly, Chinese leaders have been restrained in laying any overt claims to global leadership.At some stage, however, a more assertive Chinese nationalism could arise and damage China's international interests. A swaggering, nationalistic Beijing would unintentionally mobilize a powerful regional coalition against itself. None of China's key neighbors -- India, Japan, and Russia -- is ready to acknowledge China's entitlement to America's place on the global totem pole. They might even seek support from a waning America to offset an overly assertive China. The resulting regional scramble could become intense, especially given the similar

nationalistic tendencies among China's neighbors. A phase of acute international tension in Asia could ensue. Asia of the 21st century could then begin to resemble Europe of the 20th century -- violent and bloodthirsty. At the same time, the security of a number of weaker states located geographically next to major regional powers also depends on the international status quo reinforced by America's global preeminence -- and would be made significantly more vulnerable in proportion to America's decline. The states in that exposed position -- including Georgia, Taiwan, South Korea, Belarus, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, and the greater Middle East -- are today's geopolitical equivalents of nature's most endangered species. Their fates are closely tied to the nature of the international environment left behind by a waning America, be it ordered and restrained or, much more likely, self-serving and expansionist.A faltering United States could also find its strategic partnership with Mexico in jeopardy. America's economic resilience and political stability have so far mitigated many of the challenges posed by such sensitive neighborhood issues as economic dependence, immigration, and the narcotics trade. A decline in American power, however, would likely undermine the health and good judgment of the U.S. economic and political systems. A waning United States would likely be more nationalistic, more defensive about its national identity, more paranoid about its homeland security, and less willing to sacrifice resources for the sake of others' development. The worsening of relations between a declining America and an internally troubled Mexico could even give rise to a particularly ominous phenomenon: the

emergence, as a major issue in nationalistically aroused Mexican politics, of territorial claims justified by history and ignited by cross-border incidents.Another consequence of American decline could be a corrosion of the generally cooperative

management of the global commons -- shared interests such as sea lanes, space, cyberspace,

and the environment, whose protection is imperative to the long-term growth of the global

economy and the continuation of basic geopolitical stability . In almost every case, the potential absence of a constructive and influential U.S. role would fatally undermine the essential communality of the global commons because the superiority and ubiquity of

American power creates order where there would normally be conflict.None of this will necessarily come to pass. Nor is the concern that America's decline would generate global insecurity, endanger some vulnerable states, and produce a more troubled North American neighborhood an argument for U.S. global supremacy. In fact, the strategic complexities of the world in the 21st century make such supremacy unattainable. But those dreaming today of America's collapse would probably come to regret it. And as the world

after America would be increasingly complicated and chaotic, it is imperative that the United

States pursue a new, timely strategic vision for its foreign policy -- or start bracing itself for a

dangerous slide into global turmoil.

Sanctions Undermine Nuke DealNew sanctions could undermine the peace deal and result in warKahl 1-31 [Colin, middle east policy expert, National Interest "The danger of New Iran sanctions" http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-danger-new-iran-sanctions-9651

The legislation defies a request by the Obama administration and ten Senate committee chairs to stand down on sanctions while negotiations continue. It also flies in the face of an unclassified intelligence assessment that new sanctions “would undermine the prospects for a successful comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran.” Proponents of the bill note that the proposed sanctions would only come into force if Iran violates the Geneva agreement or fails to move toward a final deal, and would not kick in for months. But the White House warns that enshrining new economic threats in law now runs counter to the spirit of the Geneva pledge of no new sanctions during negotiations, and risks empowering Iranian forces hoping to scuttle nuclear talks. The legislation also defines congressionally acceptable parameters for a final deal that Iran experts almost universally believe are unachievable, namely the requirement that Iran completely dismantle its uranium enrichment program. For these reasons, the administration believes the bill represents a poison pill that could kill diplomacy, making a nuclear-armed Iran or war more likely.

Sanctions hawks disagree, arguing that the legislation will enable, not thwart, diplomatic progress. “Current sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table,” Senator Robert Menendez, the bill’s leading champion, contends, “and a credible threat of future sanctions will require Iran to cooperate and act in good faith at the negotiating table.”

But this logic badly misreads the historical effect of sanctions on Iranian behavior and under-appreciates the role played by Iran’s fractious domestic politics. A careful look at Iranian actions over the past decade suggests that economic pressure has sometimes been effective, but only when it aligns with particular Iranian political dynamics and policy preferences. And once domestic Iranian politics are factored in, the lesson for today’s sanctions debate is clear: the threat of additional sanctions, at this critical juncture, could derail negotiations toward a peaceful solution.

Key to Middle East Peace

Iran nuke deal key to Obama’s ability to negotiate Middle East peaceSolomon 1-1 [Jay, Wall Street Journal, "The test for diplomacy with Iran" http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-416755/

The success or failure of diplomacy with the Islamist government will help determine whether the Obama administration can implement its broader goals in the Middle East, such as ending the sectarian conflicts in Syria and Iraq and forging an Arab-Israeli peace accord. American and European officials hope a comprehensive deal on Tehran’s nuclear program will contain nuclear proliferation and herald cooperation with Iran on these other areas.

Affirmative AnswersNo impact: Even if sanctions pass, Obama will veto the legislation Merry 12-31 [Robert, political editor for the National Interest, Washington Times, "Obama may buck the Israel lobby on Iran" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/31/merry-obama-may-buck-the-israel-lobby-on-iran/

Presidential press secretary Jay Carney uttered 10 words the other day that represent a major presidential challenge to the American Israel lobby and its friends on Capitol Hill. Referring to Senate legislation designed to force President Obama to expand economic sanctions on Iran under conditions the president opposes, Mr. Carney said: “If it were to pass, the president would veto it.”

Midterms

GOP will take the Senate

GOP will take control of the Senate after midterms Judis 12-31 [John, The New Republic, "Only foreign policy can rescue Obama's second term" http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116079/obamas-second-term-foreign-policy-key

The Democrats could also lose the Senate in November. Republicans need to add six seats. They are likely to win Democratic seats in West Virginia, South Dakota, and Montana. They could win seats in North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas and Alaska and maybe even Michigan. No Republican seats appear endangered. In early September, North Carolina Democratic Senator Kay Hagan led her possible Republican opponents Mark Harris and Greg Brannon by 14 and 16 percent respectively in the PPP poll. Now she is tied with Harris and two points behind Brannon. Voter disappointment and disgust with Obamacare could eventually fade, but is not likely do so before November.

GOP will keep the house

Republicans will keep the house in the QuoAP 12-30 ["Dems, GOP seek to define issue for 2014 elections" http://www.moultonadvertiser.com/news/national/article_718ecc40-b930-5370-be4b-a44bd2f13e6d.htm

The GOP has held the House majority since January 2011 and is widely expected to maintain that edge in next November's contests. Congressional officials and outside political experts point to the drag of Obama's low approval ratings, the troubled health care law and the traditional losses for the president's party in midterm elections.

Democrats will not take back the HouseJudis 12-31 [John, The New Republic, "Only foreign policy can rescue Obama's second term" http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116079/obamas-second-term-foreign-policy-key

The Democrats are unlikely take back the House in 2014. The Democratic edge in the generic House polls, which soared during the shutdown, has completely disappeared. Republicans now have a five percent edge in the CNN poll. Republicans already enjoy an advantage from incumbency and districting. In 2012, Democrats were very slightly ahead in the generic poll before the election, but came 33 seats short of winning back the House. They probably need about a five percent lead in these polls to have a chance of taking back the House.

Midterms Key to Obama’s agenda

Democrats must maintain the Senate and have some gains in the House for Obama to get anything doneBirnbaum 1-2 [Norman, Global Times, "Obama's decisions still hold potential to reshape US ambitions" http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/835446.shtml#.UsWkkPRDsT8

Obama faces November Congressional elections. To have some freedom of action in the last two years of his second term, he must retain the Democratic majority in the Senate, and at least make large inroads on the Republican majority in the House. At present the Republicans are leading in pre-election polls, and the president's own approval ratings are low. Nonetheless, the chances of recovery are quite large.

Executive Orders

XO will cause significant political backlashDorning 12-19 [Mike, Bloomberg.com "Podesta's push for executive power raises stakes on Obama agenda" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-20/podesta-s-push-for-executive-power-raises-stakes-on-obama-agenda.html

Greater use of executive power would raise the stakes in Washington, provoking a clash with Republicans that could lead to a wave of congressional hearings, lawsuits from aggrieved parties and more tense negotiations over spending and taxes. It would also add to Republican bitterness already fueled by Senate Democrats’ move to limit filibusters of Obama appointees.

Affirmative Answers: General

Thumpers

Multitude of thumpers: Nothing will get doneCoshocoton Tribune 1-1 ["Obama, Congress need to give Americans hope" http://www.coshoctontribune.com/article/20140101/OPINION04/301010019/Obama-Congress-need-give-Americans-hope

In Washington alone, consider the difficulties: Political gridlock is rampant. Midterm elections are bound to ramp up the partisanship. Republican opposition to virtually anything Obama touches is intense and shows no signs of stopping. And some of the nation’s top legislative priorities — the Affordable Care Act, stronger guidelines on background checks for gun purchases, federal-level immigration reform, for instance — are either wrapped in controversy or going nowhere.

Thumper: Minimum wageDaily Press 1-2 ["Maximum politics on minimum wage" http://www.vvdailypress.com/articles/party-44309-level-thirteen.html

Democratic Party leaders and their confederates — including labor unions and liberal advocacy groups — decided against such issues as Obamacare, climate change and immigration reform. Instead, they opted for the old standby — a proposed increase in the minimum wage.

“It puts Republicans on the wrong side of an important values issue when it comes to fairness,” Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, told the Times. “You can make a very strong case that this will be a helpful issue for Democrats in 2014.”

Debt ceilingAP 12/27 ["Obama's 2014 agenda could be a race against the clock" http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/12/obamas-2014-agenda-could-be-a-race-against-the-clock.html

Already, familiar fault lines are emerging as Republicans and Democrats retrench for the next fiscal fight over raising the debt ceiling, which the Treasury says must be resolved by late February or early March. Despite the White House's insistence that Obama won't negotiate over that issue, Ryan has vowed the GOP will seek concessions before acquiescing.

Previous Thursday Files

Negative Cards

Iran Sanctions Obama Winning

Obama is getting Senate support to stop sanctions nowAssociated Press, December 18, 2013(“Sen. McConnell: Sen. Reid protecting Obama from Iran sanctions vote” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/18/sen-mcconnell-sen-reid-protecting-obama-iran-sanct/ sjg)

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday that his Democratic counterpart is barring any GOP changes to pending defense legislation because he “can’t stomach a vote on Iran sanctions.”In a blistering speech on the Senate floor, McConnell railed against Democratic leader Harry Reid for changing Senate rules to limit the GOP’s ability to filibuster and complained that Reid was jamming a comprehensive, $632.8 billion bill through the Senate without allowing any amendments.Reid insists that he has no other choice to counter GOP delaying tactics on nominations and legislation, including the defense policy bill which attracted some 500 amendments before Thanksgiving.McConnell, who spoke favorably about the defense bill, said Reid’s motivation in preventing any amendments was to avoid a vote on Iran sanctions. The Obama administration has pleaded with Congress to hold off on a new round of tough penalties, fearing that it will undermine last month’s nuclear deal with Tehran.McConnell said the Nevada Democrat realizes “the administration would lose that vote decisively, and he knows that many members of his own caucus would vote alongside Republicans to strengthen those sanctions.”McConnell, R-Ky., called Reid’s tactics a “short-term power grab” that could come back to haunt the Democrats if they find themselves in the minority.

Obama using Senate to delay Iran voteNeharnet December 18, 2013(“Top Republican: Senate Leader Coddling Iran for Obama” http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/110512-top-republican-senate-leader-coddling-iran-for-obama sjg)

The Senate's Democratic leadership is shielding U.S. President Barack Obama from potentially embarrassing fallout by refusing to vote on new sanctions against Iran, the chamber's top Republican warned Wednesday.Lawmakers from both parties are keen to expand economic penalties on Iran, which is in the midst of negotiations with world powers over its nuclear program.

One bipartisan proposal that Obama opposes would trigger new sanctions if last month's interim deal rolling back parts of Iran's nuclear program does not lead to a full-fledged agreement in six months.Top Republican Senator Mitch McConnell lambasted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for ramming through a defense spending bill with no opportunity to add amendments, a move that avoids debate on Iran sanctions while the sensitive nuclear negotiations are ongoing.Reid "won't allow a robust amendment process because he can't stomach a vote on Iran sanctions," McConnell said on the Senate floor."He knows the administration would lose that vote decisively, and he knows that many members of his own caucus would vote alongside Republicans to strengthen those sanctions," McConnell added."So rather than allow a democratic vote that might embarrass the administration, the majority leader simply won't permit that vote to happen."McConnell essentially accused Obama and his top allies in the Senate of seeking to diminish Congress's role in determining national security policy on critical issues like Iran and the ongoing civil war in Syria.Secretary of State John Kerry has made numerous trips to Capitol Hill urging lawmakers to hold fire on sanctions in order to give negotiations a chance.The effort appears to have worked, with leaders of the Senate Banking Committee, tasked with compiling new sanctions legislation, announcing last week they would not introduce such a bill in the near future.Asked if he would move to introduce sanctions in January, Reid said "no," but then qualified his answer."Well, let's wait and see. We have a lot to do in January," Reid said Tuesday."We'll see what Secretary Kerry comes up with for progress on the deliberations during that period of time."In a bid to stand tough, the administration expanded its sanctions blacklist against Tehran last week, triggering a walkout by Iranians in the midst of four days of talks in Vienna.Negotiations were set to resume Thursday in Geneva.

No action on sanctions bill until after Geneva talksNY Times December 19th

(“Bipartisan Assent to Hold Off New Iran Sanctions” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/world/middleeast/senators-press-obama-for-a-tougher-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0 sjg)hghgghWASHINGTON — In a meeting with Senate leaders on Tuesday, President Obama failed to sway critics of his effort to sign an interim nuclear deal with Iran. But in a modest concession, they agreed to hold off on a vote to impose new sanctions on Iran until after talks in Geneva later this week. fter a two-hour session that reflected deep divisions between the White House and Congress, a bipartisan group of the Senate’s top foreign policy and national security committees urged Mr. Obama to reject any nuclear deal with Iran that did not include a tangible rollback of its nuclear weapons program.

But after the president pleaded with them to hold off on new measures against Iran, several senators signaled that they would not seek to amend a military funding bill now under consideration with any provision including the additional sanctions.

Congress United

Budget deal passage shows parties are united. And, immigration is top of the docketUSA Today December 18th

(“Senate sends two-year budget deal to Obama” Susan Davis, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/18/senate-budget-deal-passes/4113243/ sjg)

WASHINGTON--The U.S. Senate approved, 64-36, Wednesday a limited, two-year budget framework to diffuse the threat of another government shutdown and alleviate harsh budget cuts.

Nine Republicans sided with all 55 members of the Democratic Caucus, which includes two independent senators.

The agreement was overwhelmingly approved by the U.S. House last week, and it now heads to President Obama for his signature.

The framework sets top-line spending levels for the next two fiscal years at $1.012 trillion and $1.014 trillion, respectively. The GOP-led House and Democratic-led Senate had been unable to agree on spending levels, which helped provoke the 16-day government shutdown in October.

Working off the same budget levels will allow the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to move forward on the annual 12 spending bills that fund the government's discretionary spending, which does not include spending on mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare.

"We have a heavy lift ahead of us--drafting, negotiating, and passing these bills in just over one month--but I am certain my colleagues on both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees are up to the task," House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., said last week. The current stopgap funding bill runs out on Jan. 15.

The budget deal also alleviates $63 billion in across-the-board spending cuts known as the sequester by replacing them with other cuts and new government fees on airlines, new pension requirements for future federal employees, and a 1% reduction in cost of living adjustments to working-age military retirees. It also includes an additional $23 billion in modest deficit reduction over the next decade achieved by extending certain healthcare cuts through 2023.

The budget deal is one of the final legislative acts in what has otherwise been the most unproductive year on record for Congress.

The GOP-led House has already adjourned for the year, while the Democratic-led Senate is also working to wrap up a defense bill and a number of executive branch nominations before they adjourn for the holiday season.

The deal's negotiators, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., said they are hopeful this final act of bipartisanship will usher in a new era of cooperation in a divided Washington.

Murray said the deal could help "heal the wounds" of what has been a divisive and partisan year that led to the first government shutdown in nearly two decades and included a bitter and ongoing battle over the implementation of the president's health care law.

Congress will reconvene on Jan. 6 for the second session of the 113th Congress. An overhaul of the nation's immigration laws is the dominant piece of domestic legislation facing this Congress, while congressional Republicans are also angling for additional fiscal restraints in exchange for their support to increase the nation's debt limit. A vote is expected in the spring.

Budget passage shows a congress unitedAssociated Press December 18 (“Bipartisan Budget Agreement Clears Congress” Bipartisan Budget Agreement Clears Congress sjg)

Congress sent President Barack Obama legislation Wednesday scaling back across-the-board cuts on programs ranging from the Pentagon to the national park system, adding a late dusting of bipartisanship to a year more likely to be remembered for a partial government shutdown and near-perpetual gridlock.

Obama's signature was assured on the measure, which lawmakers in both parties and at opposite ends of the Capitol said they hoped would curb budget brinkmanship and prevent more shutdowns in the near future.

"It's a good first step away from the shortsighted, crisis-driven decision-making that has only served to act as a drag on our economy," he said of the measure in a statement issued after the vote. And yet, he quickly added, "there is much more work to do to ensure our economy works for every working American."

The legislation passed the Democratic-controlled Senate on a vote of 64-36, six days after clearing the Republican-run House by a similarly bipartisan margin of 332-94.

The product of intensive year-end talks, the measure met the short-term political needs of Republicans, Democrats and the White House. As a result, there was no suspense about the outcome of the vote in the Senate — only about fallout in the 2014 elections and, more

immediately, its impact on future congressional disputes over spending and the nation's debt limit.

"I'm tired of the gridlock and the American people that I talk to, especially from Arkansas, are tired of it as well," said Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat who supported the bill yet will have to defend his vote in next year's campaign for a new term. His likely Republican rival, Rep. Tom Cotton, voted against the measure last week when it cleared the House.

AT: Debt Ceiling Thumper

No more fiscal fights Congress will get other things doneMarket Watch, 12/13/13“After the budget deal, a shiny, happy Congress? Don’t count on it,” http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2013/12/13/after-the-budget-deal-a-shiny-happy-congress-dont-count-on-it/

Greg Valliere of Potomac Research Group says budget issues will be less contentious next year, making way for immigration and tax reform. “ With [House Speaker] John Boehner no longer

tied to right-wing activists, some bills could move,” he emails , referencing Boehner’s much-documented chastising of conservative groups this week.

Budget deal will pave way to end future fights over spendingCillizza, 12/18/13Chris, “Congress has found a kumbaya moment. Can it possibly last?” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/12/18/congress-has-found-a-kumbaya-moment-can-it-possibly-last/

When the Senate approves the budget compromise later today, it will seal the first bipartisan piece of legislation to make it through both chambers of Congress in a very, very long time. The question: Is the budget deal a sign that the partisan fever has broken on Capitol Hill or is it simply an anomaly that predicts nothing as to what Congress will or won’t do in 2014?“Maybe it’s the spirit of the season, but I suspect that it is the power of a positive example,” said Ohio Republican Rep. Steve Stivers. “Now that members have seen respected leaders like

Paul Ryan and Patty Murray show that you can reach a compromise without compromising

your principles, more members are willing to try. In the past couple of years, members of Congress would frequently say that they want to work together, but nobody has wanted to compromise first.”

AT: Nominations Thumper

Reid and Senate democrats are fighting on nominations not ObamaCatalini, National Journal, 12/17/13Michael, “Senate Republicans Give Reid Lumps of Coal for Christmas,” http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/senate-republicans-give-reid-lumps-of-coal-for-christmas-20131217

Senate Republicans this week unveiled a fresh tactic in their attempt to punish Majority Leader Harry Reid for changing the rules of the Senate: forcing roll-call votes on procedural questions on nominations. The only problem is, it's not clear if it's working.

By threatening to use all the post-cloture debate time, Republicans hoped to spur Democratic senators to pressure Reid not to keep the Senate in session over the weekend and into Christmas week. Democrats, the thinking goes, don't want to be in session so close to the holidays.

But if there's one lesson Democrats learned throughout the shutdown, it's the value of

staying united.

"They know ultimately that we're gonna get it done," said Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "We're gonna stick with it till it's done, we're committed to it. We've waited too long to get this going."

Publicly, Reid's still threatening to work into the holiday week.

"We have a lot to do before Christmas, but we can get it done with a little bit of cooperation from Republicans on other issues before us," he said. "If not, we will face another long series of votes that will bring us to the weekend and at least the first part of next week."

Reid is negotiating directly with McConnell on nominees Obama is not involvedBarrett, Senior Congressional Producer, 12/18/13 8 PMTed, “Nominations fight threatens start of Senate recess,” Political Ticker, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/18/nominations-fight-threatens-start-of-senate-recess/

It remained unclear if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would press ahead to clear the nominees or pull back from the brink and let senators return home for the holidays. Republicans vowed if Reid moved forward they would require the many hours allowed by Senate rules to debate each nominee. That could stretch to Sunday or longer. “They’re going to

spend the time it takes,” Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, warned Democrats. Coburn has told Senators that he would be willing to stay in town, forcing Democrats to keep the Senate in session and be around for votes, so that other Republican Senators could return home. Reid

and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell met Wednesday, but there was no word if

they had made progress on the issue.

Political Capital High Now

Obama has capital for IranTerbush, November 26, 2013(Political staff writer for “The Week” “The Iran nuclear deal: Obama's big trust test” http://theweek.com/article/index/253376/the-iran-nuclear-deal-obamas-big-trust-test sjg)

Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) are working on joint legislation that would reinstate the full weight of sanctions on Iran, and impose harsher ones if that nation fails to comply with the six-month agreement, even though the administration has warned that legislative action could undermine negotiations toward a long-term deal.

Yet, as with ObamaCare, the president's fragile standing has afforded even critics from his own party cover to oppose the administration. While that could be little more than political posturing, Obama will nevertheless have to expend energy and political capital rallying support behind the slog toward a long-term pact.

Obama has sought to tamp down the trust concerns by noting that the deal is specifically intended "to chip away at the mistrust that's existed for many, many years" between Iran and the U.S. First, though, the president will have to chip away at the mistrust a majority of Americans now have for him.

Immigration Reform Will Pass

Will Pass—house leadershipThe Hill, December 19th

(Jeb Bush Jr “Time is now for immigration reform” http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/193578-time-is-now-for-immigration-reform sjg)

Every member of the House leadership team has expressed commitment to move reform forward in 2014, and each week the number of rank and file Republicans in favor of reform grows.In 2013 we made great strides toward a successful 2014 for immigration. Considering that just over a year ago this issue was on the sidelines, the fact that the home stretch is in sight is no small accomplishment.

2014 stands to be that blockbuster year that finally takes reform across the finish line.

Our members of Congress have the opportunity to work together on an issue with truly broad, bipartisan support. And my congressman, Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), is set to play a crucial role in those efforts.

Diaz-Balart has already shown his steadfast commitment to broad reform to our broken immigration system. From his efforts in the House Gang of Eight and his work on legalization legislation to his encouragement of Speaker Boehner’s (R-Ohio) hiring of immigration policy assistant Rebecca Tallent, the congressman has shown his resolute dedication to getting reform done this Congress.

Even with difficulties presented by the congressional calendar, there is more than enough time and political will to get reform done in the 113th Congress. The question is not if, but when.

Immigration is no longer a partisan issue. Support for reform crosses the aisle and the country. And the longer we delay on this critical issue, the higher the costs to our economy, our security and our families.

Will Pass—GOP needs reform before midtermsHill, December 18th

(Selena, “Immigration Reform 2013 News: Will Congress Pass a Reform Bill During the 2014 Election Year?” http://www.latinopost.com/articles/2209/20131218/immigration-reform-2013-news-will-congress-pass-reform-bill-2014-election-year.htm sjg)

"There is this will, there is a change of attitude in the Republican party," Jacoby said. "I think there is a chance we really could get to this."

One of the major points of contention over reform lies within dealing with the 11 million undocumented immigrants who currently reside in the country. While the bipartisan Senate bill that passed over the summer includes a pathway of citizenship, Republican leadership in the House has declared that they won't support it.Jacoby says that more House Republicans are in favor of giving undocumented immigrants legal status that would allow them to work and travel, without becoming a citizen.

Will Pass—Boehner provesUSA Today December 17th

(“Budget deal may clear decks for immigration in January” http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/4014669 sjg)

WASHINGTON - If the Senate manages to pass a long-term budget deal Tuesday, the next item on the agenda for Congress could be even harder: immigration.

Republican leaders, led by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, have deemed immigration legislation a priority in the new year. The Senate is expected to pass Tuesday a bipartisan budget deal for the next two years that would clear the legislative calendar and eliminate the threat of a government shutdown in January. And even Bob Dane, whose Federation for American Immigration Reform strongly opposes a bill, concedes that at this point, "the ground is very fertile" for an immigration bill.

"It's going to happen," Vice President Biden said during a webinar last week.

Affirmative Cards

Debt Ceiling Thumper

Fights over debt ceiling coming—thump the DAFrumin, MSNBC, 12/18/13Aliyah, “GOP tees off (another) debt ceiling showdown.” http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/gop-tees-debt-ceiling-showdown

Another year, another debt-ceiling fight. Clearly, America has a lot to look forward to in 2014.

Even though the Senate is slated to approve a bipartisan budget deal, another fiscal fight is on the horizon. Several Republicans are already alluding to yet another showdown over the debt ceiling, risking a self-inflicted blow to the party’s already damaged brand.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell – who’s up for re-election next year—told reporters that he’s already anticipating another game of chicken over the nation’s legal borrowing limit.

The Kentucky lawmaker said he isn’t optimistic his fellow Republicans will allow a debt ceiling hike in 2014 without getting something in exchange.

“I doubt if the House or for that matter the Senate is willing to give the president a clean debt ceiling increase,” said McConnell on Tuesday, adding, “We’ll have to see what the [GOP-controlled] House insists on adding to it as a condition for passing it.”

And Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who spearheaded the bipartisan budget deal, has said he too wants concessions for not allowing the U.S. to default on its debt.

Obama will get involved in big debt ceiling fightWeil, Money News, 12/17/13Dan, “Politico's White: Don't Count Out Debt Ceiling Conflict,” http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/White-debt-ceiling-Ryan/2013/12/17/id/542293#ixzz2ntNEGmmA

While it appears that the bipartisan compromise budget will now squeak through the Senate, that doesn't mean fiscal battles are over in Washington, says Ben White, chief economic correspondent for Politico and a CNBC contributor. None other than House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., who forged the budget compromise for the GOP side, is making noise about the debt ceiling, which will have to be raised again next year, White writes on CNBC.com. Ryan let it be known over the weekend that the GOP will attempt to wring policy concessions out of the Democrats in return for approval of a debt limit increase. "We as a caucus . . . are going to meet and discuss what it is we're going to want out of the debt limit," Ryan told the "Fox News Sunday" program. "We don't want 'nothing' out of this debt limit. We're going to decide what it is we're going to accomplish." So what will the GOP go for? "There will likely be pressure from the right to again use the debt limit to take some kind of bite

out of Obamacare," White asserts. " Whatever they try to add will almost certainly be

rejected by the White House and congressional Democrats, setting the stage for a possibly

ugly debt limit fight," he adds.

Nomination Thumper

Obama spending capital fighting GOP on nominationsDolan, Morning Sentinel, 12/18/13Scott, “Republicans use rule to block hearing for Maine judge,” http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/Maine_judge_s_appointment_to_federal_bench_could_create_state_court_openings_.html

Republicans invoked the so-called two-hour rule, which prevents committees from holding hearings more than two hours after the Senate has convened for the day without the consent of all senators. The Senate convened at 10 a.m. Wednesday, and the hearing was scheduled for 2:30 p.m., after the two-hour limit, according to Leahy’s staff.

Levy, 59, needs a recommendation from the Judiciary Committee and approval from the full Senate to replace U.S. District Court Judge George Z. Singal, who assumed semi-retired status effective July 31.

Levy would be one of three full-time U.S. District Court judges in Maine. The others are John A. Woodcock, appointed by President George W. Bush, and Nancy Torresen, an Obama appointee. The District of Maine also has two federal magistrate judges.

Singal and Judge D. Brock Hornby have senior status and continue to hear cases on a semi-retired basis.

Wednesday’s delay was the latest Republican effort in the Senate to thwart Obama’s judicial

nominees since Democrats changed the Senate’s filibuster procedures last month to prevent

Republicans from blocking nominees by themselves.

New Obama nominations causing fights with the GOPTaylor, EE Daily, 12/18/13Phil, “Senators spar over Interior pick, EPW leadership,” http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059992041

President Obama's pick to oversee wildlife and parks management at the Interior

Department received a fresh round of GOP criticism yesterday over her past statement

about the impacts of natural gas development in the West -- though she also received bipartisan praise.

GOP still fighting over judicial nominationsBarrett, Senior Congressional Producer, 12/18/13 8 PM

Ted, “Nominations fight threatens start of Senate recess,” Political Ticker, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/18/nominations-fight-threatens-start-of-senate-recess/

Fallout from the so-called “nuclear option” Senate Democrats triggered last month - when they dramatically weakened the ability of minority Republicans to filibuster presidential nominees - continued to reverberate through the Capitol on Wednesday as GOP Senators threatened to keep the chamber working into the Christmas recess if Democrats insisted on approving a large slate of presidential nominees.

Iran Sanctions Obama Losing

No unity – Democrats pushing for sanctions against Obamas willMcMurry December 19th 2013(“Mediaite Morning Reading List: Dems Defy Obama to Push Iran Sanctions” http://www.mediaite.com/online/mediaite-morning-reading-list-dems-defy-obama-to-push-iran-sanctions/ sjg)

Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) defied President Barack Obama on Wednesday and proposed a bill widening sanctions against Iran, a move the White House warns could jeopardize a recent agreement to slow Iran’s enrichment of uranium in exchange for a $7 billion reduction in sanctions.

The proposed bill would allow Obama to waive the harshened sanctions provided he demonstrate on a monthly basis that Iran is fully complying with the terms of the deal Secretary of State John Kerry brokered in Geneva three weeks ago, a provisional agreement meant as a step toward a more comprehensive negotiation in six months. It would also forbid the United States from waiving sanctions on Iran until the nation agreed to dismantle its nuclear program—an option some analysts, including those in the Obama administration, believe is decreasingly viable.

Dems introduced the Bill, defying Obama. That triggers the impactNational Journal, December 18(“Senate Dems Defy Obama on Iran” http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/senate-dems-defy-obama-on-iran-20131218 sjg)

A bipartisan group of senators will soon introduce legislation that would level new sanctions against Iran, defying pleas from President Obama for Congress to wait while the administration works toward a comprehensive deal.

Lawmakers are circulating legislation to impose additional sanctions that would kick in after the six-month negotiating window to reach a comprehensive deal on Iran's nuclear program runs out, or if Iran fails to hold up its end of the bargain in the interim.

The exact timing of the legislation's introduction will be largely up to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who is leading the bipartisan sanctions effort with Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.

Lawmakers and staff involved in the negotiations, however, say the bill could be ready as soon as Thursday.

"I am working with a series of members, and I expect we'll have some type of an announcement tomorrow," Menendez said Wednesday. "The dynamics are what I've always said they would be, which is to give the president the space and time so that he can test the Iranians' seriousness of purpose in terms of whether they are willing to strike an agreement, but to be ready should they ultimately fail."

Introducing the bill before the break—and thus teeing it up for action when the Senate reconvenes in January—would signal a bold act of defiance against the administration, which was still begging lawmakers this week to sit back and wait to see whether a comprehensive agreement can be reached.

The administration said that even the introduction of the bill threatened to undermine the international negotiations, and last week it appeared that the White House's aggressive lobbying campaign was making inroads in delaying legislation.

Parties are united for Sanctions passageHudson, December 12(“The Cable How Congress Could Steamroll Iran Sanctions Past Obama” http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/02/how_congress_could_steamroll_iran_sanctions_past_obama sjg)

Though some Democrats fear burning bridges with the White House, aides tell The Cable that negotiations between senators in both parties are closing in on legislation that would impose new sanctions on Tehran after six months -- the length of the preliminary nuclear deal recently hammered out in Geneva. The bill would include an option to delay the punitive action if U.S. talks on a final deal appear promising. Despite earlier reports that Republican hawks would dismiss such legislation as overly lenient, a Senate aide says that's not the case.Like perhaps no other foreign policy issue, Iran sanctions have pitted President Obama against a sizeable portion of his own party. In the last week, powerful Democrats such as Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Chuck Schumer of New York have openly defied the White House and advocated for new sanctions legislation.

Political Capital Low Now

Obama still hasn’t recovered from Affordable Care Act – No CapitalForbes 12/1(Young, “George W. Bush's Hurricane Katrina Has Nothing Politically On Obama's 'ACA'” http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/12/01/george-w-bushs-hurricane-katrina-has-nothing-politically-on-obamas-aca/ sjg)

The Affordable Care Act isn’t Obama’s political version of Hurricane Katrina, it’s worse. Although strikingly similar from a political standpoint, Obama’s ownership and depleted political capital make this threat far greater to his presidency. If realized, Obama’s would become the latest administration to discover that second terms have become amazingly fickle things.

Upon winning a second term, a president appears to have both validation and a mandate. However, even under the best of circumstances, lame duck status comes quickly in a nation forever hurrying to move on. Recently, second-term administrations have had anything but the best of circumstances.

Second term curse means Obama can’t get things donePew Research Center 12/19/13(Bruce Drake, “Obama, Bush and the ‘second-term curse’” http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/19/obama-bush-and-the-second-term-curse/ sjg)

Barack Obama and George Bush have at least one thing in common when it comes to the second terms they won — the first year of their encores have been downers when it came to their public images. Both experienced falloffs in overall job approval and in Americans’ perceptions of their leadership, ability to get things done and trustworthiness.

Bush had won re-election in 2004 by a razor-thin margin over Democrat John Kerry, and while Obama beat Republican Mitt Romney more decisively, he was one of the few presidents to win a second term by a margin lower than his first.

Common to both men was a belief that their victories opened a door to opportunity in that first year after re-election. Bush declared, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” Obama, who had dueled Romney through the campaign over his plan to extend tax cuts for the middle class but not the rich said the election had sent a “very clear message” from Americans.

But then both of them encountered the rocky first year after re-election that has become known as the “second-term curse.”

Thumpers

Controversial nominations battle thumpsABC News December 16th

(‘Will Congress Complete Its 2013 To-Do List?” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-complete-2013-list/story?id=21235936 sjg)

The Senate is poised to approve two major presidential nominees before heading into the holiday recess.

The Senate is scheduled to vote Monday on the nomination of Jeh Johnson to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security. Reid is also pushing the Senate to confirm Janet Yellen as the next chair of the Federal Reserve by the end of the week.

The confirmation of these two key nominees will culminate a months-long battle in the Senate over nominations, which pushed Senate Democrats to change filibuster rules using the so-called "nuclear option" and further infuriated Republicans.

Farm Bill ThumpsABC News December 16th

(‘Will Congress Complete Its 2013 To-Do List?” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-complete-2013-list/story?id=21235936 sjg)

The farm bill will be one of the Senate's undone items in 2013.

Conferees from the Senate and House were unable to work out an agreement on the farm bill this month as they've battled over cuts to food stamp programs and how to deal with farm subsidies.

The House last week passed a short-term extension of the bill until Jan. 31, but the Senate might not vote for the short-term fix before it heads home, leaving the issue of the farm bill to be dealt with in 2014.

Unemployment is top of the docket, not sanctionsABC News December 16th

(‘Will Congress Complete Its 2013 To-Do List?” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-complete-2013-list/story?id=21235936 sjg)

Another item left unfinished on Congress' 2013 to-do list is unemployment insurance, which is set to expire Dec. 28 when 1.3 million people will lose their benefits.

Reid last week vowed to make unemployment insurance the first item on the Senate's agenda when it returns in January, arguing that the benefits could be extended retroactively. House Speaker John Boehner has indicated a willingness to extend the benefits but is pushing for a way to offset the costs with spending reductions.

Immigration Reform Won’t Pass

No comprehensive will pass only small itemsHill, December 18th

(Selena, “Immigration Reform 2013 News: Will Congress Pass a Reform Bill During the 2014 Election Year?” http://www.latinopost.com/articles/2209/20131218/immigration-reform-2013-news-will-congress-pass-reform-bill-2014-election-year.htm sjg)

On the other hand, Derrick Morgan of the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation said it was unrealistic to expect House GOP to vote for any proposal that would grant unauthorized immigrants legal status in an election year."A lot of people feel like in 1986 there was a legalization of about three million undocumented, unlawful immigrants at that time, and now we have about 11 million," Morgan said. "To do that all over again I think is too tall of an order for this Congress to do."Rather, Morgan predicts that House members may resort to using a piecemeal approach to pass common sense legislation including amending the high tech visa programs and a proposal to track the exits of temporary visa holders.

Won’t PassUSA Today December 17th

(“Budget deal may clear decks for immigration in January” http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/4014669 sjg)

However, whether that momentum leads to a sweeping rewrite of the nation's immigration laws could have more to do with the 2014 elections than current conditions.

The biggest roadblock to legislation has been, and will continue to be, Republicans in the House who oppose a deal similar to that passed by the Senate allowing the nation's 12 million undocumented immigrants to apply for U.S. citizenship. Dane says an already-fractured GOP must stand firm in opposition if it wants to have any success come election day.

"Opposing amnesty next year is probably the last hope for the GOP to save itself from losing a core group of its voters," Dane said.

PREVIOUS THURSDAY FILES

Iran Cards from 12/12

U 1NC

Obama’s political capital is key to putting an end to another round of Iran sanctions- doing so causes Iran proliferationCNN, 12-12 (New sanctions could 'shatter Western unity' on Iran, senator says, http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/politics/iran-u-s-sanctions/index.html)Hewing to administration desires, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson forcefully repeated

Thursday what he had already said in as many words -- his committee won't seek new sanctions on Iran for the time being, and no one else should either.¶ Administration officials have publicly tried to talk lawmakers

down from acting on legislation that would impose even delayed sanctions on Iran during the first

phase of a November agreement to curb the Middle Eastern nation's nuclear program in exchange for relaxed sanctions.¶ Johnson, D-South Dakota, said Thursday he supports strong sanctions against Iran and has legislation adding new sanctions ready to move should Iran fail to meet its obligations under the deal, which is meant to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.¶ "In the meantime, we should not do anything counterproductive that might shatter Western unity on this issue -- we should make sure that if the talks fail, it was Iran that caused their

failure," Johnson said in remarks prepared for a Banking Committee hearing on the issue Thursday.¶ Despite Johnson's insistence, other lawmakers haven't given up on the idea of sanctions.¶ A bipartisan group of Senators is close to an agreement on tougher sanctions, CNN reported Tuesday, but it is not clear whether the Democratic majority would bring such a deal up for a vote.¶ That deal, if it comes together, would include a new round of sanctions to begin in six months and would bar the enrichment of uranium. It would permit commercial nuclear power as long as it

was monitored by the international community.¶ The bipartisan group includes Democrats Chuck Schumer of New

York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Mark Kirk of Illinois -- all strong supporters of Israel, whose government has panned the deal as a historic mistake.¶ "I hope this week we will introduce a bipartisan third round of sanctions," Graham told CNN in an interview on Monday. "We'll do sanctions tied to the end-game where the relief will only come if they stop the enrichment program, dismantle the reactor and turn over the enriched uranium."¶ 'Lack of faith'¶ Secretary of State John Kerry

told lawmakers Tuesday that U.S. legislation imposing sanctions could give the administration's international partners in

the Iranian nuclear deal -- Russia, China, United Kingdom, France and Germany -- the wrong idea, even if the bill includes a six-month waiting period to see if the interim agreement succeeds.¶ "Even if the sanctions are not imposed. It implies a lack of faith in the process and an unwillingness to play by the rules that our partners are playing by," Kerry said.¶ "You can design them, we can sit here and be ready to go," Kerry said. " We're just saying to you please give us the opportunity to negotiate along the contours of what we have agreed upon."¶ In his statement Thursday, Johnson agreed to do just that, and suggested that other lawmaker should follow suit.¶ "Ultimately, while some of us

might differ on tactics, it is clear we all share the same goal: to ensure that Iran does not achieve a nuclear weapon, and to do that diplomatically if possible, while recognizing that other alternatives remain on the table," he said.¶ "Now that Iran

has come to the table and entered into this first step agreement, I believe this may well be the last best chance to resolve this crisis by diplomacy, and so the President is absolutely right to fully test Iran's leaders," Johnson said.¶ Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said Monday that if new sanctions are imposed, the deal is off.

Iran proliferation ensnares Israel-Iran into nuclear war through proxiesRobb, ’12 (Charles, B.A. from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, J.D. at the University of Virginia Law School, Charles Wald, Master of Political Science degree in international relations, Troy State University, Bipartisan Policy Center Board Member “The Price of Inaction: Analysis of Energy and Economic Effects of a Nuclear Iran,” October 10th, 2012, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/PriceofInaction.pdf)

A nuclear Iran would immediately encounter a nother nuclear state—even if an undeclared one—in the region: Israel. Compared with the relative stability of the Cold War, an initial stalemate between Israel and Iran would be highly precarious at best and would

also threaten the entirety of Gulf exports, although for a more limited duration. Were Iran to become nuclear, the frequency of crises

and proxy conflicts between Iran and Israel would likely increase, as would the probability of such

confrontations spiraling into a nuclear exchange , with horrendous humanitarian consequences. There could be an

Israeli-Iranian nuclear exchange through miscalc ulation and/or miscommunication. There could also be a calculated nuclear

exchange, as the Israeli and Iranian sides would each have incentives to strike the other first. Tehran would likely have the ability to produce only a small handful of weapons, whereas Israel is already estimated to possess more than 100 devices, including thermonuclear

warheads far beyond the destructive power of any Iranian fission weapon. Under such circumstances, Iran’s vulnerability to a bolt-from-the-blue Israeli nuclear strike would actually increase its incentive to launch its own nuclear attack , lest its arsenal be obliterated. Israel’s small territorial size reduces the survivability of its second-strike capability and, more importantly, the survivability of the country itself, despite its vastly larger and more advanced arsenal. Thus, Israeli leaders might feel the need to act preventatively to eliminate the Iranian arsenal before it can be used against them, just as American military planners contemplated taking out the fledgling Soviet arsenal early in the Cold War, except that as a much smaller country Israel has far less room for maneuver. Xxvi

U 2NC

Congressional pressure on Iran sanctions still continue- Obama’s capital is keyThe Guardian, 12-12 (US hits firms for Iran violations but urges Congress against more sanctions, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/12/us-congress-iran-sanctions-violations)The Senate banking committee gave the administration a crucial break this week by announcing it will hold off on passing new sanctions

legislation this year. ¶ Sanctions supporters already began to look past the December legislative calendar and predicted a drive to punish Iran in the new year, even as the US and its allies in Britain, France,

China, Russia and Germany seek a permanent deal to prevent Iran from going nuclear. ¶ “Even if Congress doesn’t pass sanctions before the end of the year, one can be confident Congress will be back in January, and this effort to pass new sanctions undoubtedly will continue to dominate the discussion,” said Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, one of the leading proponents of deepening the sanctions regime. ¶ Nor is the battle likely to end if a deal is reached. Iran, whose economy has lost an estimated $120bn from international sanctions over the past few years and faces an estimated 35% unemployment rate, will want permanent relief from a sanctions regime that has left it isolated on everything from banking to oil sales to the automotive industry.¶ Such a deal would require the administration to compel Congress to repeal

existing sanctions, beyond the president’s executive leeway not to enforce them. If so, that will test the administration’s ability to persuade a recalcitrant and often hostile Congress to do something historic – not only open the door to a potential rapproachement with a deeply disliked adversary, but provide Obama with an achievement for his presidential legacy.

Graham will link it to NDAA- force a vote on Iran sanctionsNational Journal, 12-12 (“Graham Threatens to Block Defense Bill Over Iran Sanctions Vote,” http://www.nationaljournal.com/global-security-newswire/graham-threatens-to-block-defense-bill-over-iran-sanctions-vote-20131212)Lindsey Graham is typically one of the Senate's strongest defense supporters, but he threatened Wednesday to vote against an annual military-policy bill.The South Carolina Republican wants to be assured of a vote on Iran sanctions. "My decision about the defense bill will be linked to whether or not we get a guarantee to vote on the Iranian sanctions, if we can introduce them," Graham told reporters. "If you can convince me that there will be another path forward other than the defense bill, that will go a long

way to shape my thinking." Under an agreement reached between Armed Services Committee leaders, Congress would fast-track the annual defense authorization bill, having both chambers vote on identical bills and refusing amendments in both

chambers. That's a difficult proposition in the Senate, because many members would hope to use the bill as a vehicle for their defense-related agendas. m Graham, who is a strong advocate for sanctions and for the authorization bill, promised he'd vote against the latter unless guaranteed a vote on the former. "I need a guaranteed vehicle to get this done. I

think it's that important to our national security," he said on Wednesday. Graham's hesitation adds another complication for the fast-track passage plan, an effort to get the legislation finished before the House's scheduled departure on Friday. Other senators -- including Republicans Tom Coburn (Okla.) and Rand Paul (W. Va.)

-- are objecting to the barring of amendments, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has yet to say whether he'll back the plan, in part over concerns about bringing forward Iran-sanctions legislation.

Both and Senate will hold votes on Iran SanctionsNational Journal, 12-12 (Cantor Could Introduce Iran Legislation Before Recess, http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/cantor-could-introduce-iran-legislation-before-recess-20131212)

Congress could hold off on passing additional sanctions against Iran until January, aides told the Associated Press.House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., might introduce a resolution on Thursday that outlines what should be in a final agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program. The hope is that House members would vote on the legislation in the short window they have left to complete their work for the year.The House is scheduled to adjourn Friday. It passed additional sanctions against Iran earlier this year, and Cantor's legislation would be nonbinding. Before leaving town, House members still have to tackle the budget deal unveiled on Tuesday and the National Defense Authorization Act.In the Senate, aides said that Majority Leader Harry Reid has mentioned holding votes on additional sanctions in January. Republican senators and some Democrats have called for extra sanctions against Iran, despite a public push by the Obama administration to get senators to hold off out of a fear that congressional interference could unravel progress being made over Iran's nuclear program.Aides said Reid was hoping to hold off on voting before the Senate adjourns next week to avoid interfering with the defense authorization bill. But Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could try to demand a vote on sanctions in exchange for supporting a push to pass the defense authorization passed this year. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has also threatened to vote against the bill unless he gets assurances that a vote on sanctions will take place.

Iran sanctions being stymied now due to Obama’s lobbyingHotAir, 12-12 (“Obama administration looking to crack down on Iranian-sanction evaders while still lobbying lawmakers,” http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/12/obama-administration-looking-to-slap-more-penalties-on-iranian-sanction-evaders-while-still-lobbying-lawmakers/)It’s looking less and less certain by the day that the bipartisan group of senators pushing for a fresh round of Iranian sanctions will be able to do so before the legislative year is up; the Obama administration’s foreign-policy team has once again spent their week aggressively lobbying lawmakers to cool it, arguing that even the threat of new sanctions six months down the road could upset the oh-so-delicate balance they believe they have achieved in negotiations with the Iranian regime. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was mum on what he plans to do about the issue after emerging from a closed briefing with Secretary of State John Kerry and other lawmakers on Wednesday afternoon. Via Politico:

AT Democrats Back from DealIran Sanctions won’t be pursued for now- that proves Uniqueness- the plan changes that calculationThe Hill, 12-12 (Sen. Menendez eases off Iran sanctions, http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/192960-menendez-eases-off-iran-sanctions)A leading Senate Democrat indicated Thursday that he may be ready to abandon his push for new sanctions on Iran in the face of intense White House opposition.Instead, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (N.J.) said he may pursue a resolution that would define the Senate's expectations for any final nuclear deal with Iran.The pro-Israel hawk made the remarks at a hearing where Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) made clear his intention to hold off indefinitely on new sanctions.“I have been a proponent of pursuing additional sanctions prospectively ... but I'm beginning to think based upon on all of this that maybe what the Senate needs to do is to define the end game, or at least what it finds as acceptable as the final status,” Menendez declared at the hearing with Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, who negotiated the interim deal with Iran agreed to last month in Geneva. “Because I'm getting nervous about what I perceive will be acceptable to [the administration] as a final status ... versus what the Congress might view as acceptable.”“Maybe defining that through a resolution may be a course of action that would affect the ultimate outcome, which is obviously the most important one.”Earlier in the hearing, the top Republican on Menendez's committee acknowledged that the Senate is unlikely to pass a new sanctions bill.“I realize that we're sort of going through a rope-a-dope here in the Senate and that we're not actually going to do anything,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said.

Yes House

It will pass the HouseFox News, 11-28 (“Key Democratic senator says White House 'fear-mongering' on Iran,” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/28/democratic-senator-says-white-house-fear-mongering-on-iran/)Having voted new sanctions against Iran four months ago, the House is waiting for the Senate to act. The House would probably overwhelming support any new legislation against Iran, given that it voted 400-20 in favor of new penalties in July.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to determine how he'll react to the agreement, Democratic aides said.

Things can still change- situation is fluid

Jerusalem Post, 12-12 (Senate bill 'in the oven' as US tightens existing sanctions on Iran, http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/As-Iran-P51-work-to-implement-Geneva-deal-US-tightens-sanctions-on-Tehran-334839)Key senators are still negotiating over the new bill, which aims to bring Iranian crude exports down by at least half its current figure of roughly one million barrels per day. Senate leaders vow to respect the six-month time-frame built into the Geneva deal.Sanctions since 2011 have already cut Iranian oil exports by 60 percent.A source close to the negotiations told the Post that, with forceful pushback from the White House against any new legislation, the situation over a vote remains "fluid situation" as Congress prepares to recess for the holidays.

Menendez ILMenendez is key a democrat- Issues spillover in the context of the Cuban embargoThe Hill, 12 (Sen. Menendez likely to take Foreign Relations panel in wake of Kerry exit, http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/congressional-delegations/273363-sen-menendez-likely-to-take-foreign-relations-panel-in-wake-of-kerry-departure)“You can't work around the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he's willing to dig in his heels on important issues,” said Roger Noriega, a former assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs under President George W. Bush who's enthused by Menendez's possible promotion. “At the same time, he's going to be expected to be a team player — but that has its limits.“I think he'll give folks in the administration something to think about before they cross him, frankly.” The son of Cuban immigrants who left the island before the communist revolution, Menendez has joined other Cuban-American lawmakers in trying to block President Obama's overtures to the Castro regime. Freshly minted as the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the spring of 2009, he blocked the president's nominees to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the White House Office of Science and Technology and threatened to vote against a $410 billion spending bill to avoid a government shutdown.Provisions allowing Cuban-Americans to visit relatives once a year and ending limits on the sale of food and medicines to the island, he said on the Senate floor at the time, put “the omnibus appropriations package in jeopardy, in spite of all the other tremendously important funding that this bill would provide.” Menendez was able to extract a promise from the administration to narrowly interpret the Cuba language. He's kept up his criticism since then, decrying an “obvious double standard” for Cuba when compared to U.S. condemnation of the Soviet gulag during a recent Senate hearing and accusing the State Department of giving a “totalitarian regime … a platform from which to espouse its twisted rhetoric” by providing a visa to Fidel Castro's niece, Mariela. The fiery rhetoric is in sharp contrast to Kerry's steadfast support for Obama's foreign policy agenda, notably in successfully pushing the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia through the Senate. Kerry, who is respected for working across the aisle despite his unimpeachable Democratic credentials, won the support of Republican Sens. Dick Lugar (Ind.), Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Johnny Isakson (Ga.) on his panel.Menendez, for his part, has been a tough Republican critic on domestic issues, repeatedly denouncing the party’s plans to turn Medicare into a “voucher,” for example. While not a traditional hawk — he voted against the 2002 Iraq war resolution— he is close to Republicans on several foreign-policy issues. “When we were moving important legislation on Cuba, I think Bob Menendez was one of two or three people who actually understood the legislation,” said Noriega, an American Enterprise Institute fellow who helped draft the Helms-Burton law tightening the Cuba embargo in 1996, when Menendez was still in the House. “He's a very tough, serious, intelligent guy. I think he'll bring all those strengths at an important time to that job.”

Menendez has also consistently called for a tougher approach to Iran. He coauthored, with Sen. Ron Kirk (R-Ill.), an amendment to the defense authorization bill targeting the Central Bank of Iran, which cleared the Senate earlier this month despite the White House's concerns.

AT Obama Veto

Reuters, 11-15 (Bid for more sanctions on Iran could reach Senate next week, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/15/us-iran-nuclear-sanctions-idUSBRE9AE13320131115)The issue of sanctions on Iran is a rare area where U.S. Republicans and Democrats work together.Supported by the influential pro-Israel lobby, measures condemning Iran pass both houses of Congress by overwhelming margins. The House of Representatives approved its tighter sanctions bill in July by a vote of 400 to 20.It could be challenging politically for Democratic Senate leaders to refuse a vote on a sanctions amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The multi-billion-dollar bill, which sets annual defense policy, also would be difficult for Obama to veto.

Panda, 11-16 (The Congressional Threat to an Iran Deal, http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/the-congressional-threat-to-an-iran-deal/)Another complicating factor is that Corker has considered including his proposal as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – a piece of legislation that is critical to pass and sets military and defense policy for the entire fiscal year. The prospects of a White House veto on an NDAA bill containing such an amendment would likely be slim.

Reuters, 11-14 (Obama Says Sanctions Easing Can Be Reversed If Iran Doesn't Deliver, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/obama-iran-sanctions_n_4277205.html)Senators have been debating behind closed doors their version of the bill, which could slash Iran's oil exports to no more than 500,000 barrels a day. However the banking committee acts, some senators said they might sidestep the panel and insert tough new Iran sanctions into the annual defense authorization bill, which Obama might find hard to veto. (Additional reporting by Steve Holland, Jeff Mason, Roberta Rampton, Susan Heavey, Patricia Zengerle and David Alexander; Editing by Mohammad Zargham and Peter Cooney)

AT: Johnson Shelved Decision

Johnson’s decision is irrelevant- Still pursuing a separate deal as an amendmentUSA Today, 12-2 (Senate committee shelves new sanctions on Iran, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/12/12/senate-committee-shelves-new-sanctions-on-iran/3999405/)Johnson's decision may not be the end of the Senate fight, however. Some Republican senators, including Mark Kirk of Illinois and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have pledged to push for increased pressure on Iran by attaching an amendment to other bills before the full Senate.Graham told Fox News on Thursdaythat he intends to attach such an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill."I want the Iranians to understand that Congress believes the only reason they're at the negotiating table is because of sanctions," Graham said. "The interim deal is a terrible deal. It doesn't dismantle any of their nuclear capabilities. There is bipartisan support for additional sanctions and Congress wants a vote."The agreement signed Nov. 24 obligates Iran to stop producing nuclear fuel that is near weapons grade and to dilute or convert its stockpile of such fuel to a form that is harder to use for weapons. Iran also agreed to allow increased monitoring of its nuclear facilities. In return, world powers agreed to lift some sanctions on Iran, relief the White House has valued at $7 billion but that others say is worth much more.The agreement, which the White House calls "a first step," is supposed to buy time for a final, more comprehensive agreement six months from now.

AT: HC Thumper

Health care doesn’t tank Obama’s agenda – reject their exaggerated news reportsPaul Waldman, 11-15-2013, “Memo to Democratic Chicken Littles: The Sky Is Not Falling,” American Prospect, http://prospect.org/article/memo-democratic-chicken-littles-sky-not-fallingAh, now this is what politics is supposed to be like: Ruthless Republicans, gleeful at the prospect that they might increase the net total of human suffering. Timorous Democrats, panicking at the first hint of political difficulty and rushing to assemble a circular firing squad. And the

news media bringing out the "Dems In Disarray!" headlines they keep in storage for just this purpose. The problems of the last couple weeks "could threaten Democratic priorities for years," says Ron Brownstein. It's just like Hurricane Katrina, says The New York Times (minus the 1,500 dead people, I guess they mean, though they don't say so). "On the broader question of whether Obama can rebuild an effective

presidency after this debacle," says Dana Milbank, "it's starting to look as if it may be game over." Ruth Marcus also declares this presidency all but dead: "Can he recover? I'm sorry to say: I'm not at all confident." Oh please. Everyone just chill out. It's incredible how often reporters and pundits proclaim that what's happening this week is the most important political development in years, and the balance of political advantage today will remain just as it is indefinitely into the future. Then a few weeks or months later things change, and they forget about what they said before, declaring once again that today's situation is how things will be forevermore. Not long ago, people were saying that the fact that Obama couldn't get a congressional vote authorizing a bombing campaign in Syria had crippled his presidency. Then the Republicans shut down the government, and people were saying they wouldn't win another election in our lifetimes. That's just in the last few months. And now people are saying that Obama's second term, which has three

years left to go, is an unrecoverable disaster. So let's try to see things from a less panicky perspective. The rollout has been a mess, but it's important to remember that this period is all a preparation for the actual implementation of the law. Nothing that's happening now is permanent. People have gotten cancellation notices, but no one has lost their coverage. The website sucked when it debuted, it sucks slightly less now, but there's still lots of time for people to sign up for plans that take effect next year. And if things aren't working properly by December, they'll probably extend the open enrollment period to a point at which everything's working. That's a hassle, sure. But you can't call the Affordable Care Act a failure until it takes effect and does or does not achieve its goals. That would be like calling your team's season a failure because they lost a couple of pre-season games. A few Democrats will probably vote today for the Republican bill that purports to address the problem of cancellations but it's an attempt to gut the entire ACA. That's because they're cowards and fools, who think that they can protect themselves from a momentary political headwind by rushing into the

Republicans' arms. And you know what will happen? Nothing. You can just add this vote to the 47 prior ones repealing the law; it'll have the same impact. It won't ever get to the Senate, and even if it did it wouldn't ever be signed by the President. It isn't even worth paying

attention to. Here's what's going to happen. The administrative fix Obama announced yesterday will temporarily staunch the political bleeding. But it will have very little effect on the actual insurance market, which is a good thing. In some states, insurance commissioners won't let the insurance companies continue to sell the junk plans we've been talking about. In others, insurers won't want to go back and re-offer the plans they cancelled. Some of the people with the junk plans will end up keeping them, but most of them will end up going to the exchanges. Many will find that they can get subsidies, or even without them find an affordable plan. Some may find that they're

paying more for a plan that offers real insurance. Those in the latter group will grumble, but it won't be front-page news anymore, because the media are extraordinarily fickle, and they've already told that story. Over the next year, the rest of the law will be implemented. There may be problems here and there, but overall it will probably go reasonably well. There will be plenty of things Democrats can point to in order to convince people that it was a good idea, like the fact that now nobody can be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, or the fact that millions of people who couldn't afford coverage or were denied before now have it. There will also be things Republicans will say to try to convince people it was a terrible idea, like the fact that premiums didn't plummet, and health care is still expensive, and Obamacare didn't give every little girl a pony. And what else will happen in the next year? Other things. The economy may get worse, or it may get better. There may be a foreign crisis. Controversies we can't yet anticipate will emerge, explode, then disappear. A young singer may move her posterior about in a suggestive manner, causing a nation to drop everything and talk about nothing else for a week. We might start talking about immigration reform again. There's going to be

another budget battle. In other words, all sorts of things could affect the next election, and the election after that. So yes, this is a difficult period for President Obama, and for the Affordable Care Act. But everyone needs to take a deep breath and remember that things will change. They always do.

2NC Impact Overview

Iran prolif leads to Middle East arms race – ensures nuclear warAllison ‘6 – Graham Tillett Allison Jr., Graham Allison is an American political scientist and professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. (“The Will to Prevent,” Harvard International Law Review, Fall 2006, page lexis)

Meanwhile, Iran is testing the line in the Middle East. On its current trajectory, the Islamic Republic will become a nuclear weapons state before the end of the decade. According to the leadership in Tehran, Iran is exercising its “inalienable right” to build Iranian enrichment plants and make fuel for its peaceful civilian nuclear power generators. These same facilities, however, can continue enriching uranium to 90 percent U-235, which is the ideal core of a nuclear bomb. No one in the international community doubts that Iran’s hidden objective in building enrichment facilities is to build nuclear bombs. If Iran crosses its nuclear finish line, a Middle Eastern cascade of new nuclear weapons states could trigger the first multi-party nuclear arms race , far more volatile than the Cold War competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Given Egypt’s historic role as the leader of the Arab Middle East, the prospects of it living unarmed alongside a nuclear Persia are very low. The IAEA’s reports of clandestine nuclear experiments hint that Cairo may have considered this possibility. Were Saudi Arabia to buy a dozen nuclear warheads that could be mated to the Chinese medium-range ballistic missiles it purchased secretly in the 1980s, few in the US intelligence community would be surprised. Given Saudi Arabia’s role as the major financier of Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear program in the 1980s, it is not out of the question that Riyadh and Islamabad have made secret arrangements for this contingency. Such a multi-party nuclear arms race in the Middle East would be like playing Russian roulette—dramatically increasing the likelihood of a regional nuclear war . Other nightmare scenarios for the region include an accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch from Iran, theft of nuclear warheads from an unstable regime in Tehran, and possible Israeli preemption against Iran’s nuclear facilities, which Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has implied, threatening, “Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us to have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence.”

Iran prolif causes escalation of middle east warGerald M. Steinberg (Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is Director of the Program on Conflict Management and

Negotiation at Bar-Ilan University) April 2005 “Deterrence Instability: Hizballah's Fuse to Iran's Bomb” Jerusalem Viewpoints

Historically, in response to other threats to national survival, Israel has placed primary emphasis on maintaining a credible and robust deterrence capability. The deep structural asymmetries in the region in terms of territory and population make Israel appear to be vulnerable to a crippling first strike. Thus, Israel's capability to inflict overwhelming and disproportionate costs regardless of the extent of the initial attack has been a central feature in deterring attack. This is the case with respect to conventional warfare (based on overwhelming air superiority and highly mobile ground forces), as well as providing the foundation for the development of its policy of

"deliberate ambiguity" with respect to nuclear capabilities. This policy has served Israel well, to date. Egyptian military planners have acknowledged their decision to opt for a limited strategy in the 1973 war in order to avoid triggering an Israeli strategic response. In 1991, the fact that Saddam Hussein did not use chemical or biological warheads in the missile attacks on Israel is also attributed to fear of overwhelming Israeli retaliation. Furthermore, Israel's nuclear capability and the realization that Israel could not be "wiped

off the map" without massive retaliation were important factors in initiating peace processes with Egypt, Jordan, and beyond.12 However, the development of

an Iranian nuclear capability and a multipolar nuclear environment would end the stability resulting from the ambiguous Israeli nuclear posture, and would fundamentally change the calculus of strategic deterrence in all major dimensions. In the context of a multipolar nuclear Middle East and the need for a credible second-strike capability, maintenance of Israel's policy of deliberate ambiguity ("don't ask, don't declare, and don't test") would become increasingly difficult. Credibility and communications are central components of stable deterrence, and a more overt and visible nuclear weapons capability may be seen as necessary to avoid Iranian (and wider regional) misperceptions,

particularly given the isolation of decision-makers in Iran. However, the isolation of Iran's leaders, the fog that surrounds its decision-making structures, the absence of direct channels of communication, and its radical, religious-based, revisionist objectives will make the development of stable deterrence extremely difficult. While the Iranian leadership is not seen as suicidal or particularly prone to high-stakes risk-taking (in contrast to Saddam Hussein and other Arab leaders), there are likely to be many misperceptions regarding Israeli intentions and red lines. With many potential triggers for crises and escalation between Teheran and Jerusalem, including Hizballah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, and extremist elements within Iran, the difficulty in managing these crises in a nuclear environment will pose a formidable challenge. In comparing a potential Israeli-Iranian deterrence relationship to the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the key event is the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. The successful management of this crisis, which brought the two nuclear superpowers "eyeball to eyeball" and to the brink of mutual destruction, depended on the existing diplomatic ties and channels of direct

communications. There were periodic summit meetings between U.S. and Soviet leaders, and at the height of the confrontation, they could at least fall back on these shaky links. This is also true with respect to India and Pakistan, which came close to mutual destruction during the Kargil crisis following their respective decisions to test nuclear

weapons. But no such links exist in the case of Iran, which maintains a policy of boycotting the "Zionist entity" and supporting terrorist groups, thus

maintaining a proxy war against Israel. This policy is particularly irresponsible and dangerous for a country armed with nuclear weapons and itself a target for massive retaliation. As a result, while deterrence theory provides a basis for hope for survival in this dangerous environment, in practice, in the Iranian case, this relationship will be highly dangerous and unstable.

Iran Prolif causes war and does cause domino effect.Cirincione ‘6Joseph Cirincione is the director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – “The Continuing Problem of Nuclear Weapons” – Issues in Science & Technology – Spring – http://www.issues.org/22.3/cirincione.htmlThe world would be a more dangerous place with nuclear weapons in Iran. A Persian power with a keen sense of its 2,500-year history, Iran occupies a pivotal position straddling the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf. The country has the largest population in the Middle East, the world’s third largest oil reserves, the second largest natural gas reserves, and aspirations to again become the region’s major power. Add nuclear weapons, and this mixture become highly combustible.¶ There is no evidence that Iran currently possesses any nuclear devices or even enough fissile material (highly enriched uranium or plutonium) to produce such weapons. But for the past two decades Iran has been engaged in a secret, multifaceted program to assemble the equipment and facilities necessary to make these nuclear materials.¶ Iranian officials have justified this effort as part of an ambitious plan to build 20 nuclear reactors. Though controversial enough in and of itself, Iran’s activities also include the pursuit of several nuclear material production technologies that, if mastered, could provide Tehran with the ability to enrich uranium for fuel rods and to process these fuel rods for disposal. If these facilities are completed, Iran would become only the sixth nation in the world able to convert uranium into gas commercially and only the ninth to be able to enrich that gas for fuel. These same facilities could be used to enrich uranium and to extract plutonium for weapons use. That is the crux of the issue: Do other nations trust that Iran’s program is, as they claim, entirely peaceful?¶ In 2002, an Iranian opposition group revealed that the country’s nuclear program was much more

extensive than Tehran had previously declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA inspections have provided a clear—if still incomplete—picture of the program. However, after three years of intensive investigations, the IAEA reported in September 2005 and reaffirmed in February 2006 that it is “still not in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.” Iran’s failure to cooperate fully with inspections and to disclose all of its past activities caused the IAEA Board of Governors on February 6 to vote overwhelmingly to report Iran to the UN Security Council.¶ Iran maintains that all its nuclear activities, even those previously hidden from the IAEA, are intended for peaceful purposes, and it has agreed to place all its nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards. Moreover, in 2003 Iran signed and pledged to implement the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, which includes expanded inspection rights and tools. Iran suspended these more intrusive inspections in February 2006, after the IAEA vote.¶ Within Iran, the program is now fused with passionate nationalism. Iran’s program is a source of national pride across the political spectrum, with both conservatives and reformers supporting development of full nuclear fuel cycle capabilities as an inherent right accorded by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran’s radical new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, now addresses rallies of tens of thousands of followers chanting for nuclear power. This potentially explosive domestic political dynamic greatly complicates efforts to convince Iranian officials to end the pursuit of these sensitive nuclear programs.¶ The danger is not that Iran would build and use a nuclear weapon against the United States or its allies. Iranian leaders know that such an act would be regime suicide, as a powerful counterattack would follow immediately. This is not a nuclear bomb crisis, but a nuclear regime crisis. The danger is that a nuclear-armed Iran would lead other states in the Gulf and Middle East, including possibly Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Turkey, to reexamine their nuclear options. This potential wave of proliferation would seriously challenge regional and global security and undermine the worldwide effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. If the international community is unable or unwilling to impose penalties on Iran, and if Tehran continues its nuclear development unconstrained, the nuclear chain reaction from the region could ripple around the globe.

Iran prolif causes instability and nuclear conflict.Inbar ‘6(Professor of Political Science at Bar-Ilan Un¶ iversity and the Director of the Begin-Sadat¶ Center for Strategic Studies – “The Need To Block A Nuclear Iran”, MERIA Journal, March,¶ http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2006/issue1/jv10no1a7.html)Iran's nuclear program coupled with long-range delivery systems,¶ in particular,¶ threatens regional stability in the Middle East .¶ Iran's possesses the Shehab-3 long-range missile¶ (with a range of 1,300 kilometers) that can¶ probably be nuclear-tipped and is¶ working on extending the range of its ballistic ar¶ senal. American allies, such as Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Gulf States are within range,¶ as well as several important U.S. bases.¶ The Chief of the ID¶ F Intelligence Department¶ , Maj.¶ Gen. Aharon Zeevi (Farkash) reported that Iran has also acquired¶ 12 cruise missiles with a range of up to 3,000 kilometers and¶ with an¶ ability to carry nuclear warheads.¶ [14] Further improvements in Iranian missiles would initially put most European capitals, and eventually, the North American continent, within range of a potential Iranian attack. Iran has¶ an ambitious satellite launching¶ program¶ based on the use of multi-

stage, solid prope¶ llant launchers, with intercontinental ballis¶ tic missile properties to enable the l¶ aunching of a¶ 300-kilogram satellite within two years.¶ If Iran achieves this goal, it will put many more states at risk of a future nuclear attack¶ .

Iranian prolif risks a prolif snowball and nuclear war: Eric S. Edelman, 2011 (Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, “The dangers of NATO a nuclear Iran: the limits of containment,” Foreign Affairs, Jan-Feb. 2011, Accessed via General Onefile, 10/16/2013, rwg)

The reports of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States and the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons

of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, as well as other analyses, have highlighted the risk that a nuclear-armed Iran could trigger additional nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, even if Israel does not declare its own nuclear arsenal. Notably, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates--all signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)--have recently announced or initiated nuclear energy programs. Although some of these states have legitimate economic rationales for pursuing nuclear power and although the low-enriched fuel used for power reactors cannot be used in nuclear weapons, these moves have been widely interpreted as hedges against a nuclear-armed Iran. The NPT does not bar states from developing the sensitive technology required to produce nuclear fuel on their own, that is, the capability to enrich natural uranium and separate plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. Yet enrichment and reprocessing can also be used to accumulate weapons-grade enriched uranium and plutonium--the very loophole that Iran has apparently exploited in pursuing a nuclear weapons capability.¶ Developing nuclear weapons remains a slow, expensive, and difficult process, even for states with considerable economic resources, and especially if other nations try to constrain aspiring nuclear states' access to critical materials and technology. Without external support, it is unlikely that any of these aspirants could develop a

nuclear weapons capability within a decade.¶ There is, however, at least one state that could receive significant outside support: Saudi Arabia. And if it did, proliferation could accelerate throughout the region. Iran and Saudi Arabia have long

been geopolitical and ideological rivals. Riyadh would face tremendous pressure to respond in some form to a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to deter Iranian coercion and subversion but also to preserve its sense that Saudi Arabia is the leading nation in the Muslim world. The Saudi government is already pursuing a nuclear power capability, which could be the first step along a slow road to nuclear weapons

development. And concerns persist that it might be able to accelerate its progress by exploiting its close ties to Pakistan. During the 1980s, in response to the use of missiles during the Iran-Iraq War and their growing proliferation throughout the region, Saudi Arabia acquired several dozen CSS-2 intermediate-range ballistic missiles from China. The Pakistani government reportedly brokered the deal, and it may have also offered to sell Saudi Arabia nuclear warheads for the CSS-2s, which are not accurate enough to deliver conventional warheads effectively.¶ There are still rumors that Riyadh and Islamabad have had discussions involving nuclear weapons, nuclear technology, or security guarantees. This "Islamabad option" could develop in one of several different ways. Pakistan could sell operational nuclear weapons and delivery systems to Saudi Arabia, or it could provide the Saudis with the infrastructure, material, and technical support they need to produce nuclear weapons themselves within a matter of years, as opposed to a decade or longer. Not only has Pakistan provided such support in the past, but it is currently building two more heavy-water reactors for plutonium production and a second chemical reprocessing facility to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. In other words, it might accumulate more fissile material than it needs to maintain even a substantially expanded arsenal of its own.¶ Alternatively, Pakistan might offer an extended deterrent guarantee to Saudi Arabia and deploy nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and troops on Saudi territory, a practice that the United States has employed for decades with its allies. This arrangement could be particularly appealing to both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It would allow the Saudis to argue that they are not violating the NPT since they would not be acquiring their own nuclear weapons. And an extended deterrent from Pakistan might be preferable to one from the United States because stationing foreign Muslim forces on Saudi territory would not trigger the kind of popular opposition that would accompany the deployment of U.S. troops. Pakistan, for its part, would gain financial benefits and international clout by deploying nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia, as well as strategic depth against its chief rival, India.¶ The Islamabad option raises a host of difficult issues, perhaps the most worrisome being how India would respond. Would it target Pakistan's weapons in Saudi Arabia with its own conventional or nuclear weapons? How would this expanded nuclear competition influence stability during a crisis in either the Middle East or South Asia? Regardless of India's reaction, any decision by the Saudi government to seek out nuclear weapons, by whatever means, would be highly destabilizing. It would increase the incentives of other nations in the Middle East to pursue nuclear weapons of their own. And it could increase their ability to do so by eroding the remaining barriers to nuclear proliferation: each additional state that acquires nuclear weapons weakens the nonproliferation

regime, even if its particular method of acquisition only circumvents, rather than violates, the NPT.¶ N-PLAYER COMPETITION¶ Were Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons, the Middle East would count three nuclear-armed states, and

perhaps more before long. It is unclear how such an n-player competition would unfold because most analyses of nuclear deterrence are based

on the U.S.-Soviet rivalry during the Cold War. It seems likely, however, that the interaction among three or more nuclear-armed powers would be more prone to miscalculation and escalation than a bipolar

competition. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union only needed to concern themselves with an attack from the other. Multipolar systems are generally considered to be less stable than bipolar systems because coalitions can shift quickly, upsetting the balance of

power and creating incentives for an attack.¶ More important, emerging nuclear powers in the Middle East might not take the costly steps necessary to preserve regional stability and avoid a nuclear exchange.

For nuclear-armed states, the bedrock of deterrence is the knowledge that each side has a secure second-strike capability, so that no state can launch an attack with the expectation that it can wipe out its opponents' forces and avoid a devastating retaliation. However, emerging nuclear powers might not invest in expensive but survivable capabilities such as hardened missile silos or submarine-based nuclear forces. Given this likely vulnerability, the close proximity of states in the Middle East, and the very short flight times of ballistic missiles in the region, any new nuclear powers might be compelled to "launch on warning" of an attack or even, during a crisis, to use their nuclear forces preemptively. Their governments might also delegate launch authority to lower-level commanders, heightening the possibility of miscalculation and escalation. Moreover, if early warning systems were not integrated into robust command-and-control systems, the risk of an unauthorized or accidental launch would increase further still. And without sophisticated early warning systems, a nuclear attack might be unattributable or attributed incorrectly. That is, assuming that the leadership of a targeted state survived a first strike, it might not be able to accurately determine which

nation was responsible. And this uncertainty, when combined with the pressure to respond quickly, would create a significant risk that it would retaliate against the wrong party, potentially triggering a regional nuclear war.

Most probableJames A. Russell, Senior Lecturer, National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School, ‘9 (Spring) “Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East” IFRI, Proliferation Papers, #26, http://www.ifri.org/downloads/PP26_Russell_2009.pdf

Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the bargaining framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that introduce unpredictability into relationships between the antagonists; (3) incompatible assumptions about the structure of the deterrent relationship that makes the bargaining framework strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for military action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Iran’s response to pre-emptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United States; (6) the lack of a communications framework to build trust and cooperation among framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine scenarios under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional antagonists would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an unstable strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the probability of war – a war in which escalation could happen

quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such an outcome, which would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.

Iran prolif is a crisis magnifier – draws in great powers to small conflictsEdelman, Fellow – Center of Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, ‘11(Eric, “Edelman, Krepinevich, and Montgomery Reply,” Foreign Affairs Vol. 9 Iss. 2, March/April)

Ultimately, if Tehran does cross the nuclear threshold and Israel chooses to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, one of the principal objectives of U.S. policy should be convincing Israel to maintain its policy of nuclear opacity for as long as possible. The benefit of a slightly more credible Israeli deterrent would not outweigh the added difficulties the United States would confront in seeking to limit a nuclear Iran's influence, preserve regional stability, and prevent additional proliferation.A second important issue Adamsky raises is that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would increase the threat that Israel faced from Iranian proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, either because Tehran would provide increased assistance and encouragement to these groups or because they would become more reckless once they had a nuclear-armed patron. A premeditated attack by Iran against Israel is not the only scenario that could lead to a nuclear exchange, or even the most plausible one. Instead, a limited conflict in southern Lebanon or the Gaza Strip might spiral out of control. Iranian proxies could escalate their attacks against Israel, assuming that it would be deterred by its fear of a nuclear Iran. Israel could then defy their expectations and conduct major reprisals to demonstrate its resolve, prompting Iran to make nuclear threats in defense of its clients. The results would be unpredictable and potentially disastrous. Although debates over Iran's nuclear program often turn on the issue of Iranian "rationality," it is important to remember that there are many different paths to conflict, and the dynamics of Iranian-Israeli relations could be prone to miscalculation and escalation.

Turns Hegemony

Nuclear Iran kills U.S. hegemony – emboldens enemies and weakens alliancesTakeyh and Lindsay, 10[James M. Lindsay, Senior Vice President, Director of Studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg Chair, Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies “After Iran Gets the Bomb Containment and Its Complications,” March/April 2010, http://www.cfr.org/publication/22182/after_iran_gets_the_bomb.html]

The dangers of Iran's entry into the nuclear club are well known: emboldened by this development, Tehran might multiply its attempts at subverting its neighbors and encouraging terrorism against the United States and Israel; the risk of both conventional and nuclear war in the Middle East would escalate; more states in the region might also want to become nuclear powers; the geopolitical balance in the Middle East would be reordered; and broader efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons would

be undermined. The advent of a nuclear Iran—even one that is satisfied with having only the materials and infrastructure necessary to assemble a bomb on short notice rather than a nuclear arsenal—would be seen as a major diplomatic defeat for the United States. Friends and foes would openly question the U.S. government's power and resolve to shape events in the Middle East. Friends would respond by distancing themselves from Washington; foes would challenge U.S. policies more aggressively.Such a scenario can be avoided, however. Even if Washington fails to prevent Iran from going nuclear, it can contain and mitigate the consequences of Iran's nuclear defiance. It should make clear to Tehran that acquiring the bomb will not produce the benefits it anticipates but isolate and weaken the regime. Washington will need to lay down clear "redlines" defining what it considers to be unacceptable behavior—and be willing to use military force if Tehran crosses them. It will also need to reassure its friends and allies in the Middle East that it remains firmly committed to preserving the balance of power in the region.

Containing a nuclear Iran would not be easy. It would require considerable diplomatic skill and political will on the part of

the United States. And it could fail. A nuclear Iran may choose to flex its muscles and test U.S. resolve. Even under the best circumstances, the opaque nature of decision-making in Tehran could complicate Washington's efforts to deter it. Thus, it would be far preferable if Iran stopped—or were stopped—before it became a nuclear power. Current efforts to limit Iran's nuclear program must be pursued with vigor. Economic pressure on Tehran must be maintained. Military options to prevent Iran from going nuclear must not be taken off the table.

Iran nuclearization kills U.S. hegemony and credibility Daremblum 2011 Jaime, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and directs the Center for Latin American Studies, Iran Dangerous Now, Imagine It Nuclear, http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=8439

What would it mean if such a regime went nuclear? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a nuclear-armed Iran would never use its atomic weapons or give them to terrorists. Even under that optimistic scenario, Tehran's acquisition of nukes would make the world an infinitely more dangerous place. For one thing,

it would surely spark a wave of proliferation throughout the Greater Middle East, with the likes of Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia - all Sunni-majority Muslim countries - going nuclear to counter the threat posed by Shiite Persian Iran. For another, it would gravely weaken the credibility of U.S. security

guarantees. After all, Washington has repeatedly said that the Islamic Republic will not be permitted to get nukes. If Tehran demonstrated that these warnings were utterly hollow, rival governments and rogue regimes would conclude that America is a paper tiger. Once Tehran obtained nuclear weapons, it would have the ultimate

trump card, the ultimate protection against outside attack. Feeling secure behind their nuclear shield, the Iranians would almost certainly increase their support for global terrorism and anti-American dictatorships. They would no longer have to fear a U.S. or Israeli military strike. Much like nuclear-armed North Korea today, Iran would

be able to flout international law with virtual impunity. If America sought to curb Iranian misbehavior through economic sanctions, Tehran might well respond by flexing its muscles in the Strait of Hormuz. As political scientist Caitlin Talmadge explained in a 2008 analysis, "Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz tops the list of global energy security

nightmares. Roughly 90 percent of all Persian Gulf oil leaves the region on tankers that must pass through this narrow waterway opposite the Iranian coast, and land pipelines do not provide sufficient alternative export routes. Extended closure of the strait would remove roughly a quarter of the world's oil from the market, causing a supply shock of the type not seen since the glory days

of OPEC." Think about that: The world's leading state sponsor of terrorism has the ability to paralyze the global economy, and, if not stopped, it may soon have nuclear weapons. As a nuclear-armed Iran steadily expanded its international terror network, the Western Hemisphere would likely witness a significant jump in terrorist activity. Tehran has established a strategic alliance with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez, and it has also developed warm relations with Chávez acolytes in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua while pursuing new arrangements with Argentina as an additional beachhead in Latin America Three years ago, the U.S. Treasury Department accused the Venezuelan government of "employing and providing safe harbor to Hezbollah facilitators and fundraisers." More recently, in July 2011, Peru's former military chief of staff, Gen. Francisco Contreras, told the Jerusalem Post that "Iranian organizations" are aiding and cooperating with other terrorist groups in South America. According to Israeli intelligence, the Islamic Republic

has been getting uranium from both Venezuela and Bolivia. Remember: Tehran has engaged in this provocative behavior without nuclear weapons. Imagine how much more aggressive the Iranian dictatorship might be after crossing the nuclear Rubicon. It is an ideologically driven theocracy intent on spreading a radical Islamist revolution across the globe. As the Saudi plot demonstrates, no amount of conciliatory Western diplomacy can change the fundamental nature of a regime that is defined by anti-Western hatred and religious fanaticism.

Turns US Credibility

Iran prolif jacks US credBolton, senior fellow – AEI, 4/15/’11(John, http://www.aei.org/article/103463)

Inside Iran, we now have confirmation—thanks to disclosures this month by an Iranian opposition group, which have been confirmed by Iranian officials—that the regime has the capability to mass-produce critical components for centrifuges used to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels. That news proves again the inefficacy of U.N. Security Council resolutions and sanctions against a determined adversary.Thus Iran's weapons program proceeds full steam ahead, which only emphasizes to would-be proliferators that persistence pays. Moammar Gadhafi surrendered his nuclear weapons program in 2003-04 because he feared becoming the next Saddam Hussein, but he is now undoubtedly cursing his timidity. Had he made seven years of progress toward deliverable nuclear weapons, there would surely be no NATO bombing of his military today.An Iranian nuclear capability would undoubtedly cause Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others to seek their own deliverable nuclear weapons. We would therefore see a region substantially more in Iran's thrall and far more unstable and dangerous for Washington and its allies.Moreover, America's failure to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions—which is certainly how it would be perceived worldwide—would be a substantial blow to U.S. influence in general. Terrorists and their state sponsors would see Iran's unchallenged role as terrorism's leading state sponsor and central banker, and would wonder what they have to lose.

Turns Economy

Destroys the world economyPhillips 2K6(Phillips Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, 06 James, June 2, “U.S. Policy and Iran’s Nuclear Challenge” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iran/hl942.cfm)

There is no guaranteed policy that can halt the Iranian nuclear program short of war, and even a military campaign may only delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability. But U.S. policymaking regarding the Iranian nuclear issue inevitably boils down to a search for the least-bad option. And as potentially costly and risky as a preventive war against Iran would be, allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would result in far heavier poten tial costs and risks. The U.S. probably would be able to deter Iran from a direct nuclear attack on American or Israeli targets by threatening massive retaliation and the assured destruction of the Iranian regime. But there is a lingering doubt that a leader such as President Ahmadinejad, who reportedly harbors apocalyptic religious beliefs, would have the same cost-benefit calculus about a nuclear war as other leaders. The bellicose leader, who boldly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” before he acquired a nuclear weapon, might be sorely tempted to follow through on his threat after he acquired one. Moreover, his regime might risk passing nuclear weapons off to terrorist surrogates in hopes of escaping retaliation for a nuclear surprise attack launched by an unknown attacker. Even if Iran could be deterred from considering such attacks, an Iranian nuclear breakout would undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, and Algeria to build or acquire their own nuclear weapons. Each new nuclear power would multiply the risks and uncertainties in an already volatile region. Iran also may be emboldened to step up its sup port of terrorism and subversion, calculating that its nuclear capability would deter a military response. An Iranian miscalculation could easily lead to a future military clash with the United States or an American ally that would impose exponentially higher costs than a war with a non-nuclear Iran. Even if it could not threaten a nuclear missile attack on U.S. territory for many years, Tehran could credibly threaten to target the Saudi oil fields with a nuclear weapon, thereby gaining a potent blackmail threat over the world economy.

Nuclear Iran results in geopolitical shock that hurts the US economyWarner, the daily telegraph assistant editor, 09(Jeremy, Britain’s leading business and economic commentators, 9-25-09, “Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions Threaten Economic Meltdown”, DOA: 8-9-13, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100001095/irans-nuclear-ambitions-threaten-economic-meltdown/

The biggest threat to recovery in the world economy has long seemed to me to be not that of a further leg in the financial crisis or even the fiscal ruination of developed economies, but some kind of geo-political shock, most likely eminating from Iran.Revelations of a second, covert uranium enrichment facility on Iranian soil bring such a shock that much closer. Let me map out the nightmare scenario. Continued Iranian defiance causes the UN security council to back American led demands for sanctions. But they don't work, possibly because Russia and or China continue to supply Iran with essential needs.The failure of sanctions then prompts Israel to take unilateral military action against nuclear facilities in Iran, which in turn causes Iran to go through with its threat to mine Persian waters and attempt to halt the supply of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. The price of oil sky rockets, tipping the world economy precipitously back into recesssion. Financial markets again panic, leading to a further crash on the stock market and another crisis of confidence in the banks. All the action taken by governments in trying to halt the downward spiral in the economy goes up the swannee. Impausible? Regrettably only too possible.Iran's nuclear ambitions have once more made the Middle East into a tinder box. This matters to us in the West not just because of the obvious threat to our own security from nuclear proliferation but because of the region's vital role in supplying oil to the world.The lurch into recession a year ago wasn't exclusively down to the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the wider financial crisis. In my view, it was always as much about the spike in oil prices. Shocked by prices at the pumps, American consumers en masse decided to stop spending.The recovery would be shattered by a further oil price shock of this sort. The effect would be similar to, if not worse than, the Arab oil embargo of 1973. Claims by G20 leaders that thanks to decisive and unprecedented policy action the world has been saved from a second Great Depression would go up in smoke. Worse, there's nothing left in the fiscal and monetary cannon to deal with any further upsets. It's already been all used up.

Central Asia Impact

Nukes cause regional aggression and Central Asian instabilityBlank, 03Stephen Blank, analyst of international security affairs, Jun 24, 2003, “Iran's nuclear allies play with fire,” Asia Times< http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF24Ak03.html>

All these forces that drive Iran's programs are well known. Many are long-standing and in some cases they are comparable to the motives that drove other nuclear states to acquire nuclear weapons. But one needs to think carefully about the threats that may emerge from Iran if it does indeed become a nuclear player. As in all other cases of nuclearization, possession of nuclear weapons will essentially codify Iran's immunity from foreign pressure as related to its defense and foreign policies. The most dangerous aspect of this is that the possession of nuclear weapons makes it much safer for Iran to launch conventional wars or attacks against its enemies. Pakistan's sponsorship of an unrelenting terrorist war against India dating back 15 years exemplifies the danger. And Iran's terrorist war has as a clear objective, the derailment of any peace process in Israel, the incitement of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, if not beyond, and the destabilization of the new American presence in Iraq and beyond that in the Middle East and Central Asia.But beyond that, in the past Iran has used its conventional weapons to threaten Azerbaijan and Kazakstan with regard to energy holdings in the Caspian Sea and has conducted terrorist operations against dissidents in Europe, often with the help of similarly-minded regimes like Libya. It also, according to US intelligence assessments given to Congress, has the capability to close down the Straits of Hormuz and to interdict shipping there and into the Gulf for several days. If it achieves a nuclear deterrent to back up the conventional capabilities it is also acquiring, Iran can pose a formidable regional threat to the global economy, and not just its neighbors or Israel. This is magnified by the fact that it apparently can produce usable anti-ship missiles on its own. Or at least, so it claims.Apart from being a supporter of terrorism, Iran is also clearly a proliferator of conventional weapons to terrorists, as the interception of the Karine-A ship in 2002 by Israel showed. And the possibility of becoming a supplier to other states who wish to obtain nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out. That ship, it should be remembered, was carrying US$10 million of weapons, many of which seemed to have originated in Russia or were made in Iran using Russian know-how that had been exported to Iran. Those weapons would have provided the Palestinian Authority with the means to dramatically upgrade its capabilities for terrorist attacks against Israelis. Iran is also a customer for North Korean, Chinese and Russian proliferation, and at the same time a very interested player in the fate of Afghanistan. Thus, from the foregoing, we can see that it has an ambitious and rather destabilizing foreign policy agenda.

General Nuclear War Impact

Iran prolif causes global nuclear warKroenig ’12 Matthew Kroenig, Council on Foreign Relations Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow and Georgetown University assistant professor of government, “The History of Proliferation Optimism: Does It Have A Future?” Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, 5/26/2012, http://www.npolicy.org/article.php?aid=1182andtid=30 sjg

Currently, Iran restrains its foreign policy because it fears a major military retaliation from the United States or Israel, but with nuclear weapons it could feel free to push harder. A nuclear-armed Iran would likely step up support to terrorist and proxy groups and engage in more aggressive coercive diplomacy. With a nuclear-armed Iran increasingly throwing its weight around in the region, we could witness an even more crisis prone Middle East. And in a poly-nuclear Middle East with Israel, Iran, and, in the future, possibly other states, armed with nuclear weapons, any one of those crises could result in a catastrophic nuclear exchange.

Middle East War Module

A) Failed diplomacy in Iran causes a Middle East war:Mark Leonard, 10/15/2013 (staff writer, “On Iran, Obama’s bigger challenge is with his allies,” http://blogs.reuters.com/mark-leonard/2013/10/15/on-iran-obamas-bigger-challenge-is-with-his-allies/, Accessed 10/16/2013, rwg)

With the possibility of bilateral meetings between the U.S. and Iran in Geneva, and supported by the U.S.-Russian deal on chemical weapons in

Syria, there is a tantalizing prospect that the Iranian regime could become a partner to the U.S., rather than a rival.¶ It is too early to know if Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is able to deliver, but as diplomats gather in Geneva for

U.N. talks, it is not hard to see why President Obama would invest so much hope in a deal. A former Democratic congressman who knows Obama well explained to me that, like healthcare on the domestic front, it would be a bold, game-

changing initiative. And, like healthcare, an alliance with Iran eluded President Bill Clinton.¶ Obama recognizes that there is

the danger of a full-blown regional sectarian conflict in the Middle East. If diplomacy fails

with Iran , Obama could find himself remembered as the president who took the United States

into two new Middle East Wars — in Iran and Syria — rather than the one who ended two wars in Afghanistan and

Iraq.

B) Middle East war risks extinctionJames Russell 2009 (James, Senior Lecturer in the Department of National Security Affairs – Naval Postgraduate School, “Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prosepects for Nuclear War and Escalation in the Middle East,” ifri.org/downloads/PP26_Russell_2009.pdf)

Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the bargaining framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that introduce unpredictability into relationships between the antagonists; (3) incompatible assumptions about the structure of the deterrent relationship that makes the bargaining framework strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for military action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Iran’s response to pre-emptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United States; (6) the lack of a communications framework to

build trust and cooperation among framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly

easy to imagine scenarios under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional

antagonists would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a

mistake to believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from

being used in the context of an unstable strategic framework . Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact

suggest a certain increase in the probability of war – a war in which escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such an outcome, which

would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.

(--) Iran’s nuclear ambitions risk a Middle East war:Louis Charbonneau, 10/16/2013 (“U.S. says talks intense, serious after Iran hints at atomic concessions,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/16/us-iran-nuclear-idUSBRE99F0G820131016, Accessed 10/16/2013, rwg)

The joint statement, read out by European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, said Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif "presented an outline of a plan as a proposed basis for negotiation" and the talks were "substantive and forward looking," without elaborating.¶ Zarif, who is also Iran's chief negotiator, said Tehran looked to a new era in diplomatic relations after a decade of tension, in which concerns about the Islamic state's

nuclear ambitions fuelled fears of a new war in the Middle East.

(--) American-Iranian rivalry is fueling instability in the Middle East:David Rohde, 9/19/2013 (staff writer, “Iran's offer is genuine — and fleeting,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/19/us-irans-offer-idUSBRE98I18B20130919, Accessed 10/16/2013, rwg)

Despite the risks, however, now is the time for Obama and Rouhani to launch the first direct negotiations between Iran and the United States since the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. From Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons to the conflict in Syria, the American-Iranian rivalry is helping fuel instability in the region.

Syria Module

A) Successful Iranian diplomacy solves the Syria crisis:Mark Leonard, 10/15/2013 (staff writer, “On Iran, Obama’s bigger challenge is with his allies,” http://blogs.reuters.com/mark-leonard/2013/10/15/on-iran-obamas-bigger-challenge-is-with-his-allies/, Accessed 10/16/2013, rwg)

In talks this week, Zarif called for a road map for a nuclear deal within a year by tying confidence measures on the nuclear program to a progressive lifting of sanctions and diplomatic hostilities. He has hinted at a willingness to restrict the amount of highly-enriched uranium in Iran and other measures to reassure the world that Iran will not be able to develop nuclear weapons. If there is progress in the talks, it would open the possibility for a

normalization of the relationship between Iran and the U.S. and move toward a political

solution on Syria.

B) Conflict in Syria escalates to a major regional war – draws in the US and RussiaPeter Goodspeed, 2011 National Post, 12/14/2011, “Peter Goodspeed: Power shifts push Mideast closer to war,” http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/14/peter-goodspeed-middle-east-on-the-brink-of-war/

As Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad clings to power with the quiet backing of regional powers Iran and Russia, the Middle East may be sliding slowly into war. Squeezed between the rebellions of a bloody Arab Spring and growing fears of a possible military response to Iran’s growing nuclear threat, the region is becoming increasingly unstable. “I would be very surprised if it turned into a Russian-American war, but this could be a Mid-East war: Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, Israel all having at each other,” said Jack Granatstein, military historian and senior research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute. Ramazan Gözen, an international relations expert at Abant İzzet Baysal University wrote this week in the Turkish newspaper Zaman, “A process of steadily sharpening polarization is being experienced … [and] it does not bode well…. In short, the polarization over Syria and Iran can turn into an uncontrollable conflict between the polarized countries and their supporters.” Related Syrian government like ‘dead men walking’: U.S. State Department Thirteen killed as Syrian rebels clash with Assad forces Syrian death toll climbs past 5,000 as protests give way to insurgency Iran ready to begin nuclear work deep inside underground mountain bunker: sources Russia and the United States are bracing for a naval confrontation, unprecedented since the Cold War, in the eastern Mediterranean, just off the coast of Syria. Iran, worried over a possible pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities, has threatened to attack NATO’s new missile defence shield in Turkey if it is attacked by either Israel or the United States. It has also said it will soon stage a navy drill to practise closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world’s oil travels. . Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has raised the possibility of a Turkish military incursion into Syria to create safety zones for refugees, if Mr. Assad doesn’t stop killing civilians. Syria responded last weekend by staging a massive live-fire military exercise, near the north-central desert town of Palmyra, that, according to Syrian state TV, was designed to test “the capabilities and readiness of missile systems to respond to any possible aggression.” On Tuesday, under the headline “U.S. troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?” the online Russian news channel RT.com reported U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq are secretly being transferred to northern Jordan and taking up positions opposite Syrian tank formations along the border. There have been reports NATO forces in Turkey may be training Syrian dissidents, while also helping prepare Turkish troops for any possible military intervention. The headquarters of NATO’s air command for southern Europe has been located in Izmir Air Base, 320 kilometres southwest of Istanbul, since 2004. Turkey, the only Muslim member of NATO, hosts up to 24 major NATO bases on its territory and went to the brink of war with Syria as recently as 1998 in a dispute over Syria’s support for Kurdish terrorist attacks inside Turkey. As tensions have increased between the two countries, with Turkey cutting trade and imposing financial sanctions, Syria has infuriated Turkey by re-establishing relations with the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). But it is Russia, Syria’s main arms supplier and old Cold War ally, that has raised the stakes of any possible military confrontation. Along with China, the Russians have repeatedly blocked UN Security Council action against Syria and sought to protect Mr. Assad’s regime from the type of UN resolution that allowed NATO troops to intervene in Libya and help depose dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Recently, Russian diplomats met with Syrian opposition leaders in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade them to hold peace talks with the Syrian government. Russia has also tried to convince Mr. Assad to accept an Arab League plan to allow international observers into Syria. On Tuesday, just as UN officials accused Syria of killing more than 5,000 people in the last nine months, Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, angrily accused the West of taking an “immoral” stance on Syria by punishing Mr. Assad, while refusing “to raise the pressure on the armed extremist flank of the [Syrian] opposition.” Mr. Lavrov insisted Syrian dissidents are using a “Libyan scenario” as a template for regime change and are deliberately trying to provoke a humanitarian crisis in the hopes of triggering foreign intervention. Russia has had strong ties with Syria since Soviet times, and supplies Damascus with most of its weapons. Syria is also Russia’s sole conduit for influence in the Middle East and provides Moscow with the only port its navy can use in the Mediterranean. The port Tartus is rapidly becoming a focal point for a potential conflict. Russia sent three guided missile frigates, reportedly loaded with anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles for Syria, there in late November. In an echo of the Cold War,

the Russian ships were briefly shadowed by the U.S. Navy’s nuclear aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush and its naval strike force. Now, the U.S. Sixth Fleet is said to be cruising off the Syrian coast, awaiting the arrival of Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is scheduled to arrive in Tartus with a strike force of its own next week. The flagship of the Russian fleet, accompanied by several destroyers, will rendezvous with the three Russian

frigates and elements of Russia’s Black Sea fleet for exercises off the coast of Syria. This unexpected show of Russian naval power, the most demonstrative since the fall of the Soviet Union, may be designed to reassure Syria of Moscow’s continued support. But it could also complicate any possible foreign intervention in Syria and serves as a warning to the United States and NATO that they won’t be able to duplicate the no-fly zone they established over Libya. The arrival of the Russian navy off the coast of Syria

may also be intended to reassure Iran of Moscow’s continued interest, just as it fears a possible attack by Israel or the United States. “The fight in Syria today is two contests in one,” said Michael Doran of Washington’s Brookings Institute. “It is a struggle

between Syrians over the nature of their government and society, but it is also a regional rivalry between Iran and its adversaries.

C) US-Russia conflict in the Middle East goes nuclearLaRouche 12-9-2011 (Lyndon LaRouche, political activist & economist, author of multiple books on economics & politics, Norman Bailey, formerly with the National Security Council, described LaRouche's staff as one of the best private intelligence services in the world, 12-9-11, “Why Obama has to go: to risk thermonuclear war is clinically insane,” Executive Intelligence Review, http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2011/eirv38n48-20111209/index.html)

"What's happened is, the U.S. forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, and in the Persian Gulf region, especially naval forces, in particular, are positioned for launching a thermonuclear war. The name of the game, of course, is what we're going to do to Syria, what we're going to Iran, but if you look at the forces in the area, that makes no sense. Then you look at other aspects of it, and you know that now the Russians are in on the thing, in defending Syria, in particular, against this atrocity, and you realize that we're on the edge of actually going to thermonuclear war. "What happened was, of course, and I don't know how much, or how well this is known, but our leading general officers, advisors, and so forth, who advise us on our security, have opposed any action by Obama of this type. So therefore, that is, in that degree, tied up. But, what's hanging out there, is, at any moment, a war could start. "Now, this war will be a war with thermonuclear weapons. That's the fact. The idea that this is only Syria and Iran is nonsense. What we have positioned in the Gulf area, and in the Eastern Mediterranean, is the capability for thermonuclear war, and nothing else. Our allies, including the British, do not have the depth of weapons capability for doing something like this. Only the United States, and only the thermonuclear warfare capability of the United States, could actually conduct such a war. It would be a war against the entirety of Asia, and other places."

Impacts: AT: Iran will be deterred

A nuclear Iran can’t be deterred:Eric S. Edelman, 2011 (Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, “The dangers of NATO a nuclear Iran: the limits of containment,” Foreign Affairs, Jan-Feb. 2011, Accessed via General Onefile, 10/16/2013, rwg)

If Iran did acquire nuclear weapons, would a containment strategy preserve stability in the Middle East? Some analysts, including Lindsay and Takeyh, argue that although Iran can be aggressive at times, it also regulates its

behavior to avoid provoking retaliation. Since the regime is sensitive to costs, the logic goes, it recognizes the dangers of escalation; hence, containment would work. Other analysts argue that Iran's antagonism toward the United States and Israel is so strong and so central to its leaders' legitimacy that Tehran will become more hostile once it has a nuclear arsenal, regardless of the consequences.¶ The truth probably lies

somewhere in between. Tehran may not be irrationally aggressive, but its leadership structure and decision-making are opaque. Its rhetoric toward the United States, Israel, and the Arab nations is often inflammatory. And its hostile behavior--including its support for proxies such as Hezbollah, its efforts to subvert its neighbors, and its provocative naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf--could easily trigger a crisis. In short, it is unclear how a nuclear-armed Iran would weigh the costs, benefits, and risks of brinkmanship and escalation and therefore how easily it could be deterred from attacking the United States' interests or partners in the Middle East.

Extended deterrence vs. Iran will fail:Eric S. Edelman, 2011 (Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, “The dangers of NATO a nuclear Iran: the limits of containment,” Foreign Affairs, Jan-Feb. 2011, Accessed via General Onefile, 10/16/2013, rwg)

In sum, any U.S. effort to implement an extended deterrence regime in the Middle East in order to contain a nuclear Iran and stem proliferation in the region would face very serious challenges. Given the magnitude of those challenges, the United States must redouble its efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons while also taking steps that will bolster its credibility if containment becomes necessary

because Iran has acquired nuclear weapons.

AT: Can’t Trust Rouhani

(--) Rouhani is trustworthy:Mark Leonard, 10/15/2013 (staff writer, “On Iran, Obama’s bigger challenge is with his allies,” http://blogs.reuters.com/mark-leonard/2013/10/15/on-iran-obamas-bigger-challenge-is-with-his-allies/, Accessed 10/16/2013, rwg)

Rouhani’s stated goals seem straightforward: reversing the crippling sanctions in Iran to improve the economic situation and elevating his country’s international standing. Javier Solana — Europe’s former top diplomat who opened nuclear talks with Rouhani when Rouhani was Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator —

told me that Rouhani “is a rational person who you can do business with.” Since coming to power, Rouhani has taken steps to change the mood. He appointed the intelligent and western-friendly Mohammad Javad Zarif to the foreign ministry, wresting control of the nuclear dossier from the country’s Supreme National Security Council and handing it to Zarif’s foreign ministry. Most intriguingly, he appointed Ali Shamkhani, an Iranian war hero of Arab origin, to be head of the Security Council.

(--) The best gamble is to believe Rouhani:David Rohde, 9/19/2013 (staff writer, “Iran's offer is genuine — and fleeting,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/19/us-irans-offer-idUSBRE98I18B20130919, Accessed 10/16/2013, rwg)

The best bet is to gamble that Rouhani is what he says — a moderate trying to outflank his country's conservatives. Not rewarding the bold public steps he has taken will undermine Rouhani's fleeting authority in Iran.¶ If there is a lesson from Afghanistan and Iraq, it is that U.S. military force allows

nationalists to blame foreigners for trying to change their nation. Conservatives in Iran will use an American military action to bolster their own

standing and discredit moderates.¶ In the long-term, it is far more effective to have an Iranian moderate battle an Iranian hardliner than an American soldier. In the end, it is Iranians who will discredit their nation's theocracy, not foreigners.

AT: Deal Fails

Meeting Iran halfway is key and the deal does thatAFP, 12/4/13 (Agence France-Presse, “White House warns Congress not to undermine Iran nuclear deal with more sanctions,” http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/04/white-house-warns-congress-not-to-undermine-iran-nuclear-deal-with-more-sanctions/, bgm)

While some reports billed the White House statement as a major concession on enrichment, Obama has all along argued that his aim in the negotiations is to ensure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon and that Tehran could retain some verifiably peaceful civilian nuclear program. By implication, that means Iran could end up with some limited capacity to enrich, albeit well below the purity levels needed to produce a weapon — as long as its actions are proven to be peaceful and subject to airtight monitoring. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has vehemently criticized the Geneva deal, has however called for a complete end to uranium enrichment in all its forms by Iran. Hawks on Capitol Hill in both political parties back his stance. However, more pragmatic analysts in Washington argue that such a “perfect” deal is out of reach and would not be politically viable in Iran. In the end, the key to a permanent deal may be some kind of diplomatic formula that allows the West to argue that Iran has made major concessions and rolled back its nuclear program to make the swift production of a weapon impossible and for Iranian negotiators to be able to proclaim to their domestic constituencies that they did not formally renounce the “right” to enrich uranium.

AT: Sanctions Won’t Hurt Deal

Sanctions torpedo the dealFarrell, 12/5/13 (Henry, associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University, “Would new Iran sanctions help U.S. negotiators? Probably not.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/12/05/would-new-iran-sanctions-help-u-s-negotiators-probably-not/, bgm)

Menendez seems to think that the US needs its own hardliners too, to narrow the U.S. win set, so that it doesn’t make concessions that it shouldn’t be making. New sanctions legislation would make it clear to Iran both that Senate ‘ratification’ (i.e. passing legislation to roll back sanctions) is going to be very hard and that failure to reach an acceptable deal will hurt Iran. The problems with this line of reasoning are twofold. First, there isn’t any very good evidence that it works on its own terms. In the words of Peter Evans: The strategy of ‘tying hands’ – deliberately shrinking the win-set in pursuit of an agreement closer to the [negotiator's] preferred outcome – is infrequently attempted and usually not effective. The ‘tying hands’ strategy, suggested by Thomas Schelling’s work, is logically plausible but lacks efficacy in practice. Perhaps because they are aware of its limited efficacy, statesmen prefer not to have their ‘hands tied’ by constituents, even when they share the constituents’ preferences Second, it can be very risky. It can easily go too far, by shrinking the perceived win set down so much that there is no longer any possible agreement. Any final deal will have to get sign-off from the House and Senate, which will both have to roll back the sanctions legislation that is already in place. New sanctions may lead the Iranians to conclude that there isn’t any possible deal that would pass the House and Senate and also be acceptable to Iran. Plausibly, shrinking the win set too much will be riskier when the actors doing the shrinking don’t have a detailed grasp of the nuances of the negotiations. The risk will obviously be even higher if these actors have to compromise with others who sincerely want the negotiations to fail. Both conditions seem to apply to the Senate’s threats.

New sanctions completely derail the deal – undermine RouhaniBeinart, 12/2/13 (Peter, “No, More Sanctions Won’t Help With Iran,” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/02/no-more-sanctions-won-t-help-with-iran.html, bgm)

The point is that sanctions did not force a monolithic Iranian regime to cut a deal it would never have contemplated before the recent economic pain. Sanctions empowered people who had favored such a deal even before the recent economic pain. Had those people not won last June’s elections, the sanctions would not have worked. In the words of Payam Mohseni, an Iran expert who teaches government at Harvard, “The victory of another candidate, such as [hardline] former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, would not have produced such a change in foreign policy despite the presence of the same sanctions regime.” That’s why the “some sanctions good, more sanctions better” logic espoused by Menendez and Netanyahu is so wrong. Sanctions “worked” because by imposing economic pain, they helped to discredit Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other nuclear hardliners. But if Rouhani’s comparatively soft-line

approach results in even harsher sanctions, then those sanctions may begin to discredit him. As the Council on Foreign Relations’s Ray Takeyh has noted, that’s what happened during the Khatami years, when Rouhani was accused of “appeasement” for making nuclear overtures that the Bush administration spurned. Today, according to reports from Iran hardliners are poised to level the same charge. And discrediting Rouhani will be easier if they can point to tangible signs of Western bad faith.

Sanctions kill the dealBeinart, 12/2/13 (Peter, “No, More Sanctions Won’t Help With Iran,” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/02/no-more-sanctions-won-t-help-with-iran.html, bgm)

Today, America should make a similar investment in Hassan Rouhani, not because Rouhani will give America everything it wants, but because if he fails, America will get far less. Legislating new sanctions now, even if they don’t immediately take effect, could destroy Rouhani’s nuclear diplomacy. If that happens, we may have to wait years more for leaders willing to cap Iran’s nuclear program and end its cold war with the West. And by the time they come along, who knows how many centrifuges Iran will have?

Sanctions destroy Iran negotiations kills US cred and alliancesNader, The Hill, ‘13(Alirez “ Pause on additional Iran sanctions crucial to negotiations” 11-5-13 http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/189371-pause-on-additional-iran-sanctions-crucial-to-negotiations

Iran has demonstrated a different tone and approach to nuclear negotiations since the June 14 election of Hassan Rouhani as president. Nothing concrete has emerged yet, but the U.S. negotiating team, headed by Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, has described the last round of negotiations as positive and different from previous sessions with the Iranian team under former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

ADVERTISEMENTRouhani’s election and, more importantly, Iran’s dire economic condition are the reasons for Tehran’s new approach. Some have taken this to mean that more sanctions are needed. However, just because Tehran is seeking to ease the pressure brought on by the sanctions that exist today does not mean that it will yield to new sanctions tomorrow.Rouhani has a limited mandate to solve the nuclear crisis and lift sanctions. However, more radical elements of the Iranian political system, marginalized for now, are waiting for him to fail. They believe that the American government is either duplicitous or will be unable to deliver a deal. New sanctions would confirm their view and further their goals of ending negotiations and sidelining Rouhani.

New sanctions passed before a true test of Iran’s intentions could result in a bleak future: a risky and costly war with Iran with no guarantee of success, or the acceptance of an increasingly embittered, isolated, repressive and nuclear capable Islamic Republic.

The Iranian people have borne the brunt of sanctions, but it would be hard to argue that the Iranian regime has not felt the pressure as well.

Sanctions have led to a drastic cut in Iranian oil exports, a depreciation of the Iranian currency and rising inflation. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iranians have become unemployed or lost their savings. And many of the elite have been affected as well. Some Iranians might be getting rich off the sanctions, but the vast majority of Iranian economic actors — from bazaar merchants to the Revolutionary Guard to independent tycoons — are closely linked to the state, and depend on Iran’s oil income.

Moreover, Iran’s lack of access to the global financial system has meant a drastic reduction in non-oil exports, decreased domestic manufacturing and a potentially dangerous real estate bubble in Tehran.

It is not surprising that Rouhani, who once negotiated a suspension of the nuclear program with the Europeans, has been given the mandate to solve Iran’s crisis with the world. And it appears that thus far the new Iranian president is unwilling or incapable of addressing other major issues such as political reforms. For now, Rouhani has his hands quite full with the nuclear program.

And it is this crucial portfolio that could determine his fate.

He has the support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard, without which he would not be able to negotiate or even run his government. But Khamenei and the Guard are under no illusion that negotiations are sure to succeed; nor are they willing to continue negotiations under humiliating conditions. Sanctions are a danger to their rule, but weakness in the face of pressure might be no less a threat. They must give Rouhani a chance because the Iranian people and key political constituents support negotiations. The viability of Rouhani’s platform of moderation and engagement with the West hangs in balance. Khamenei and hard-line Guard are willing to “test” America as much as the Obama administration is willing to “test” Tehran.

New sanctions under consideration by Congress could lead to a weakening of the overall U.S. position. First, Rouhani could lose his mandate to continue negotiations. Second, Iran could begin to undermine the international coalition that has created the harshest peacetime sanctions in history. Rouhani, weakened at home but still respected abroad, could persuade major Iranian oil buyers such as China, India, Japan and even European that Iran attempted to negotiate in good faith but was rebuffed by the United States. Third, Iran could successfully cause a split between the group. China and Russia might believe that Congress wants regime change in Iran instead of a diplomatic solution. Germany, which has close business ties with

Iran, could become unhappy about its economic sacrifices. And even the U.K. and France could begin to doubt U.S. intentions.

Congress deserves credit for pressuring the Iranian regime, but it should pause the march toward new sanctions to give the negotiations a chance. Current sanctions against Iran are effective, and new sanctions can always be imposed if Iran does not budge. A smart approach toward Iran does not only entail creating pressure but using it correctly, and for the right goals

Aff- Iran SanctionsDemocrats backed away from Iran sanctions- aren’t pushing for itLake, 12-12 (Eli, Editor for the Daily Beast, “Senate’s Iran Sanctions Deal Falls Apart,” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/12/senate-s-iran-sanctions-deal-falls-apart.html)Democrats bow to requests from President Obama to delay additional sanctions while the White House negotiates a nuclear deal with Tehran.¶ A deal in the Senate to impose additional sanctions on Iran has fallen apart, as Senate Democrats accede to requests from President Obama to delay new legislation while world powers negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran.¶ Senate staffers tell The Daily Beast that a bipartisan amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act was ready to go last night, and aimed at closing loopholes in the current sanctions on Iran. The new bill, however, would only kick in after the six-month negotiations period—specified in an interim deal reached last month with Iran—expired and only if Iran had been found in violation of its obligations.¶ “We don’t know why the Democrats walked away from this,” one senate staff member involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast on Thursday. “There was a deal last night, but something happened in the last 12 hours.”¶ The collapse of the Senate’s efforts to reach a sanctions compromise between Senators Mark Kirk (R-Il.) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is a victory for President Obama and President Rouhani of Iran. Earlier this week, Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, told Time magazine that any new sanctions from Congress would collapse the nuclear talks between his country and the United States, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom. ¶ Secretary of State John Kerry also warned Congress this week in open and closed testimony that any new sanctions would unravel the international support that has made the pressure on Iran’s banking sector and oil industry so effective.¶ But Kerry also promised this week that the Obama administration would ask Congress to impose additional sanctions if Iran was found to be in violation of its obligations or if the nuclear negotiations collapsed.¶ The collapse of the sanctions amendment was hinted at on Thursday at a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee. Sen. Robert Menendez, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who was leading the sanctions negotiations in the Senate, said he was interested in pursuing new legislation that would define an acceptable outcome of Iranian negotiations as opposed to a new round of sanctions on Iran. “I know I have been a proponent of pursuing additional sanctions prospectively and in a timeframe beyond the scope of the six-month period of negotiations,” Menendez said. “But I am beginning to think based upon all of this maybe what the Senate needs to do is define the end game, at least what it finds as acceptable.”Later Menendez declined to directly answer questions from reporters as to whether he still intended to introduce new sanctions in the Senate. When asked, he said, “We’re looking at all the options and what is the best effort that the Senate can lead to assure the eventual outcome is one we can be supportive of and want to accomplish, and that’s our focus.”

Sen. Bob Corker, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was more blunt on Thursday. At the hearing, he said of new sanctions: “I understand we are going through a rope-a-dope here in Congress and we are not going to do anything.”

Treasury’s announcement on Thursday placated key SenatorsHotAir, 12-12 (“Obama administration looking to crack down on Iranian-sanction evaders while still lobbying lawmakers,” http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/12/obama-administration-looking-to-slap-more-penalties-on-iranian-sanction-evaders-while-still-lobbying-lawmakers/)It’s looking less and less certain by the day that the bipartisan group of senators pushing for a fresh round of Iranian sanctions will be able to do so before the legislative year is up; the Obama administration’s foreign-policy team has once again spent their week aggressively lobbying lawmakers to cool it, arguing that even the threat of new sanctions six months down the road could upset the oh-so-delicate balance they believe they have achieved in negotiations with the Iranian regime. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was mum on what he plans to do about the issue after emerging from a closed briefing with Secretary of State John Kerry and other lawmakers on Wednesday afternoon. Via Politico:“I and many of my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle are still committed to passing legislation that would call for — at the expiration of six months if there’s no final agreement — increased sanctions on Iran,” McCain told reporters after the briefing. “We think that that’s appropriate.”But other influential Republicans, including Bob Corker, the top GOP member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, appeared skeptical of the effort. …Two Democratic senators who had previously pledged for a sanctions bill to pass Congress expeditiously were more cautious after listening to Kerry. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said senators “have a lot to consider” and said “after a briefing, I don’t want to just react. I want to consider what I’ve heard.” …Other key Democrats such as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada declined to comment after the briefing.Today’s Banking Committee hearing on Iran was also inconclusive about what an immediate course of action might look like; and if the pro-sanctions group of senators do end up getting their planned legislation out this week, it looks like Reid will abide by the White House’s requests and fall back on Congress’s already crowded end-of-year agenda to slow-walk it until at least January.In the meantime, in an apparent effort to placate those senators and convince them that they have no intention of rushing through any undue or premature sanctions relief, the Treasury Department announced on Thursday that it plans to tighten the screws on a list of companies and individuals for trying to pull a run-around on Iran’s economic restrictions, via the AP:

House will vote till next JanuaryNational Journal, 12-12 (Cantor Could Introduce Iran Legislation Before Recess, http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/cantor-could-introduce-iran-legislation-before-recess-20131212)

Congress could hold off on passing additional sanctions against Iran until January, aides told the Associated Press.House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., might introduce a resolution on Thursday that outlines what should be in a final agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program. The hope is that House members would vote on the legislation in the short window they have left to complete their work for the year.The House is scheduled to adjourn Friday. It passed additional sanctions against Iran earlier this year, and Cantor's legislation would be nonbinding. Before leaving town, House members still have to tackle the budget deal unveiled on Tuesday and the National Defense Authorization Act.In the Senate, aides said that Majority Leader Harry Reid has mentioned holding votes on additional sanctions in January. Republican senators and and some Democrats have called for extra sanctions against Iran, despite a public push by the Obama administration to get senators to hold off out of a fear that congressional interference could unravel progress being made over Iran's nuclear program.

Sen. Johnson has said no iran sanctionsUSA Today, 12-2 (Senate committee shelves new sanctions on Iran, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/12/12/senate-committee-shelves-new-sanctions-on-iran/3999405/)The Senate Banking Committee shelved new Iran sanctions Thursday, giving the Obama administration the time it's been asking for to seek a final deal on Iran's nuclear program.Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., the committee chairman, made the announcement during his opening statement at a hearing Thursday."I agree that the administration's request for a diplomatic pause is reasonable," Johnson said. "A new round of U.S. sanctions now could rupture the unity of the international coalition against Iran's nuclear program."