Gunfire in Bangkok as govt protesters clash with PM supporters (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

Published time: November 30, 2013 11:20
Edited time: November 30, 2013 18:31

Get short URL

Anti-government protesters tear down barricades during a demonstration outside Government House in Bangkok November 30, 2013. (Reuters/Dylan Martinez)

Download video (6.12 MB)

Tags

Asia, Clashes, Conflict, Politics, Protest,Violence

Gunshots have been reported in the Thai capital as clashes between thousands of protesters turned violent. While anti-government activists call for the removal of the Prime Minister, proponents took to the streets to “protect democracy.”

One person was shot dead and at least 10 wounded in the outbreak of violence which took place between rival parties near a Bangkok stadium, according to hospital staff.  Thousands of Red Shirt supporters of current Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra had been staging a rally at the venue. 

The shooting occurred after anti-government protesters waylaid and attacked several people who they had believed to be heading to the gathering, reported AP.

At least five people received gunshot wounds and five others were injured by knives or rocks, according to officials at both the nearby Ramkamhaeng Hospital and the Dr Panya General Hospital who spoke to Reuters. 

Anti-government protesters tear down barricades during a demonstration outside Government House in Bangkok November 30, 2013. (Reuters/Dylan Martinez)

Earlier on Saturday, anti-government activists, or so-called Yellow Shirts, attempted to force entry into the Government House in Bangkok. 

Protesters also attacked a bus near a pro-government rally, reported AFP. 

Meanwhile, over 750,000 web users employing the services of state telecom firm, Telephone Organization of Thailand (TOT), were left without internet access due to technical problems. TOT did not clarify whether the problems had been connected to the protests, but it had previously been reported that hundreds of opposition protesters occupied parts of the building housing its services. They also gathered briefly near Communications Authority of Thailand (CAT), another key state telecoms firm.

Over the last six days Bangkok has played host to the biggest anti-government rallies since 2010, with thousands of protesters calling for the removal of Shinawatra.

"Dozens of anti-government protesters are attacking a bus with paving stones and other plastic chairs, there are people in the bus," said an AFP photographer at the scene. Reuters witnesses said that two people were badly beaten in the incident. 

Following the violence, police said some 3,000 troops will be deployed to reinforce security in Bangkok. 

"From tonight there will be soldiers out to take care of security," national police spokesman Piya Utayo said in a televised address. 

A man is attacked by anti-government protesters near the stadium where pro-government red shirts are gathering in Bangkok November 30, 2013. (Reuters/Damir Sagolj)

Earlier in the day, pro-government demonstrators took to the streets of the Thai capital on Saturday to support democratically elected Prime Minister Yingluck. 

Organizers of the rally said that around 13,000 people gathered in Bangkok’s Rajamangala stadium “to protect democracy” on Saturday. Supporters of the political group, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), flocked to Bangkok to defend the government elected by the majority of Thai people.

The ‘red coats’ chanted pro-government slogan and waved banners in solidarity with Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. Sompote Prasartthai, a co-leader of the UDD group in Nakhon Ratchasima province told the Bangkok Post that there would be no confrontations between the ‘red coats’ and anti-government activists. 

Thai opposition protesters attack a bus carrying pro-government Red Shirt supporters on their way to a rally at a stadium in Bangkok on November 30, 2013.(AFP Photo/Christophe Archambault)

Meanwhile, opposition leader, Suthep Thaugsuban, promised the “defeat of the Thaksin regime” to his followers on Friday night. Anti-government protesters have staged a number of rallies over the last six days with attempts to occupy various ministries which culminated in the storming of the Royal Thai Army headquarters on Friday - in a bid to win military support.

The opposition wants to remove Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and allege that her government is being controlled by self-exiled former leader Thaksin Shinawatra. Billionaire Thaksin was ousted in a 2006 coup, but still enjoys a lot of popularity in rural Thailand. 

Thai pro-government Red Shirt supporters wave clappers and cheer leaders' speeches during a rally at a stadium in Bangkok on November 30, 2013. (AFP Photo/Christophe Archambault)

The former leader was convicted with power abuse two years after he was removed from power. Tensions were newly ignited in Thailand after the government attempted to pass a controversial Amnesty Bill at the beginning of November. The legislation, which was kicked out by the Senate, would have allowed Thaksin to return to Thailand without serving a jail sentence for his crime. 

Prime Minister Yingluck has offered to negotiate with the opposition and has introduced special powers, allowing curfews and road closures in response to the unrest. 

Thai pro-government Red Shirt supporters wave clappers and cheer leaders' speeches during a rally at a stadium in Bangkok on November 30, 2013. (AFP Photo/Christophe Archambault)

Suthep has refused to enter into dialogue with the Prime Minister and resolved to “demolish” her government and replace it with a “people’s council.”

"Our only goal is that there must be no Thaksin regime in Thailand anymore," protest leader Suthep said.
The main opponents of the current government are the middle classes who sharply disagree with the current government's authoritarian rule. Also Thailand’s generals, aristocrats, big businessmen and royal advisers are embittered by the party's perceived disloyalty to the monarchy.

original link from

http://rt.com/news/bangkok-government-protest-demonstrate-514/

Defiant flights: Japan, S. Korea military planes fly into China's air defense zone

Published time: November 28, 2013 09:45
Edited time: November 28, 2013 11:56

Get short URL

Lockheed P-3C Orion

Share on tumblr

Tags

Asia, China, Japan, Military, Politics, South Korea, USA

Key American allies in East Asia, Japan and South Korea, have followed US lead by sending military aircraft to fly through disputed airspace, which China unilaterally included last week in its air defense zone.

Tokyo and Seoul sent its aircraft into the disputed areas following a similar flight on Monday by two unarmed American B-52 bombers. Neither country informed the Chinese of their plans beforehand, stressing their defiance of Beijing’s claim over the airspace.

China announced last week that it now considers new airspace as part of its Air Defense Identification Zone and demanded that aircraft passing it notify Chinese authorities of their flight plans and identify themselves as they pass. The claimed zones include those over islands, the sovereignty over which China contests other nations.

Japanese military said Tuesday that it sent surveillance missions over the islands in the South China Sea, which are called the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China.

"They are carrying out surveillance activity as before in the East China Sea, including the zone," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told a regular news conference.

The area is routinely patrolled by Japanese naval ships and P-3C aircraft, Suga said.

"We are not going to change this [activity] out of consideration to China," he stressed.

Meanwhile South Korean forces flew over the Socotra Rock in the Yellow Sea, the northern part of the South China Sea. Both South Korea and China consider it to be within their respective exclusive economic zones and call it Ieodo and Suyan Rock respectively.

The Philippines, also engaged in a dispute with Beijing over islands, said it also was rejecting China's declaration.

South Korean air Force fighter planes (Reuters / South Korean air force / Handout)

The demonstrations of military defiance by the US and its allies so far did not draw any response from Beijing. Chinese military said it monitored the passage of the US bombers, but did not comment on whether they plan to take any action to enforce the new rules.

Some experts and policymakers believe the declaration of the defense zone was rather a symbolic gesture aimed at eroding Japanese and South Korean influence over the disputed territories rather than a practical move.

"China will not implement [the zone] fully because they do not have enough assets ... but they will try to scare smaller nations," told Reuters a source in the Japanese government, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue with the media.

While choosing to ignore China’s claims in practice, its rivals are not hesitating to voice their displeasure on diplomatic level. On Thursday, a resolution approved by PM Abe’s party demanded that China rescinded the new defense zone, calling the move "unreasonable expansionism." The panel however refrained from using the wording “pre-modern and imperialist,” as was initially suggested.

Beijing rejected on Thursday calls from Tokyo and Seoul to rectify the zone. It also accused Japan of using double standards over the issue, pointing out that it implemented its own zone back in 1969.

"Japan consistently blames others and smears the name of other countries but never examines its own conduct," China's Defense Ministry spokesman, Yang Yujun, said in a statement posted on the ministry's website.

"If they want it revoked, then we would ask that Japan first revoke its own air defense identification zone and China will reconsider it after 44 years," Yang added.

The conflict gives a chance for the US to reiterate its ties with its Asian allies. In a telephone call on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told his Japanese counterpart Itsunori Onodera that the defense pact covered the disputed islands. He also commended Japan for "for exercising appropriate restraint," a Pentagon spokesman said.

Original link from

http://rt.com/news/japan-south-korea-china-432/

Nepal enters ICC World Twenty20 with thrilling win

Nepal enters ICC World Twenty20 with thrilling win

Paras Khadka leads from the front as Nepal seals last-ball win over Hong Kong in quarterfinal

David East presents Paras Khadka of Nepal with the man of the match award.

Nepal qualified for the ICC World Twenty20 2014 in Bangladesh with a thrilling, five-wicket win over Hong Kong off the last ball in the quarterfinal of the ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier tournament at the Sheikh Zayed Stadium in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday (November 27).

Sent in to bat, Hong Kong lost its first wicket in the second over,  with Irfan Ahmed falling to Jitendra Mukhiya, the medium-pacer, for 8. Avinash Karn then struck after three overs to remove Jamie Atkinson, the Hong Kong captain, to leave the side struggling at 25 for 2 in 4.1 overs. Waqas Barkat and Nizakat Khan scored 25 runs each as Mukhia and Karn continued troubling the batsmen with disciplined bowling. Late cameos from Munir Dar (20) and Tanwir Afzal (25) took Hong Kong to 143 for 8 in its 20 overs.

Mukhiya was the pick of the bowlers for Nepal bagging 3 for 32 runs in his four overs.

Nepal got off to a steady start in its chase with a 32-run opening stand between Sagar Pun and Subash Khakurel, the wicketkeeper. Gyanendra Malla chipped in with an innings of 30 from 27 balls after Afzal castled Khakurel for 16 in the fifth over. Paras Khadka, the Nepal captain, played a responsible hand of 46 before he was run-out by Babar Hayat in the 19th over, leaving Nepal 128 for 5, needing 16 to win off nine balls.

Sharad Vesawkar and Pradeep Airee then took charge, remaining unbeaten till the end with Vesawkar easing the pressure by smashing a six and a four off the first two balls of the final over from Haseeb Amjad. He took a single off the last ball to take Nepal to its target of 144 and seal the win.

Nepal thereby joined Afghanistan and Ireland to become the third team to qualify for the ICC World Twenty20 2014.

Khadka, who was named the Man of the Match for his innings, was thrilled with Nepal's qualification, the first time it had entered the ICC World Twenty20 tournament.

"This is the biggest moment of our lives.  It’s all our childhood dreams come true. I think the boys have worked really hard for this, over the past two months, the past two years, we’ve been really pushing it in the World Cricket League and the Twenty20 format.  I think that when it mattered, everyone contributed, and I am really glad we are there," said Khadka.

Reflecting on the dramatic victory, he said: “That’s cricket for you.  You can never take things for granted, you have to win it as soon as you can.  In the end, it really doesn’t matter if it’s on the last ball or any ball.”

Khadka added that while the side was overjoyed at qualifying, it would go straight back to training to keep focused on the remainder of the current tournament. "The tournament is still not over, we have a chance, we are in the semifinals now, we are most likely playing Afghanistan, so it’s about time we give them what they've been giving us all these years. So we’d like to go out there, win the semifinals, and go on to win the final."

While Nepal readies itself for the semifinal, Hong Kong will face Papua New Guinea in a do-or-die clash on Thursday.

"It was good going in today, knowing we could play with no fear and know if we did lose we had another chance. But I will take nothing away from the effort from our boys today. We put everything out there and it was just unfortunate and was a great game of cricket,” said Mark Chapman, the Hong Kong middle-order batsman.

Original link 

http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2013/match-reports/76405/nepal-enters-icc-world-twenty20-with-thrilling-win

live cricket streaming every matches anytime

California town bans smoking in homes

Published time: November 25, 2013 17:07

Get short URL

Reuters / Rafael Marchante

Share on tumblr

Tags

Conflict, Health, Human rights, Law,Politics, USA

While restrictions on smoking in public are becoming stricter across the country, one California town has taken things a step further and banned smoking in all homes that share walls with other residences.

The new city ordinance in San Rafael, California prohibits smoking in any homes that share common walls, including apartments, condominiums, co-ops, and even multi-family residences that hold three units or more.

The ordinance was passed last month but didn’t take effect until November 14, and applies not only to renters, but also to owners. It effectively bans smoking in one’s own home, raising the eyebrows of those who feel the government has gone too far.

According to ABC News, the new measure was drafted after studies showed second-hand smoke leaked into other apartments through walls, cracks, and ventilation ducts.

"It depends on a building's construction, but it does affect the unit next door, with the negative health impacts due to smoke,” Rebecca Woodbury, one of the analysts who helped San Rafael develop the rules, said to ABC.

Woodbury added that, in addition to the studies showing the negative impact of second-hand smoke on health, another report by UCLA revealed that when smokers move out of their homes, the cost of cleaning the apartments throughout California can run as high as $18 million a year.

Although other cities have also passed similar ordinances – the Boston Housing Authority in Massachusetts barred smoking in public housing in 2011 – Woodbury said San Rafael’s ban is the strongest in the country.

"We based it on a county ordinance, but we modified it, and ended up making it the strictest,” she said.“I'm not aware of any ordinance that's stronger."

Local opposition to the new rules seems to be muted – The Week reported that only two residents protested the changes before the city council voted on October 15 – but various groups across the country are concerned about what these provisions mean for individual privacy.

According to George Koodray of New Jersey’s Citizens Freedom Alliance and the Smoker’s Club, second-hand smoking laws started out trying to protect those who didn’t want to be exposed to smoke, but have now morphed into attempts to control smoking at all costs.

Steve Stanek, a researcher at the Heartland Institute in Chicago, and a non-smoker, said it was another example of the government restricting people’s actions. He noted that Illinois’ criminal code has ballooned from 65 pages to more than 1,300 today.

"My sympathies aren't with smokers because I am one, it's because of the huge growth in laws and punishments and government restricting people more and more," Stanek told ABC. "The encroachment of government is astonishing.”

original link from

http://rt.com/usa/san-rafael-california-smoking-ban-276/

Military hand-me-downs: US police getting leftover armored trucks from Iraq

Published time: November 25, 2013 12:06

Get short URL

A Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Classification One vehicle demonstrates its off-road abilities in a water puddle at the U.S. Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Aberdeen, Maryland (Reuters/Larry Downing)

Share on tumblr

Tags

Conflict, Iraq, Law, Military, USA, Violence

The US military is handing over leftover equipment from the Iraq conflict to police under a military surplus program. Civil liberties groups have criticized the initiative as unnecessary and a move toward the militarization of American law enforcement.

American law enforcement agencies have received 165 MRAPs – 18 ton, armored vehicles with gun turrets – this year, according to an AP investigation. Military officials say police have filed requests for 731 more, but none are available. 

“It’s armored. It’s heavy. It’s intimidating. And it’s free,” Craig Apple, the sheriff of Albany County, told AP.

Each of the hulking military vehicles costs around $500,000, and before the MRAPs can be used by law enforcement agencies they have to be refitted for civilian use. Even after retro-fitting, the vehicles are still limited. Because of their size, the vehicles are unable to cross some bridges and travel on narrow roads. 

The investigation revealed that some of the MRAPs have already been put to use. In the city of Boise, Idaho, police deployed the vehicle because they suspected a suspect was in possession of heavy firearms and explosives. In Nampa, police used their MRAP to protect officers from a potential explosion. 

The distribution of the armored military vehicles to police forces has prompted strong opposition from US rights groups. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has attacked the military surplus program, branding it a move to militarize law enforcement. 

A new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle called the M-ATV is on display outside the Pentagon (AFP Photo/Tim Sloan)

“One of our concerns with this is it has a tendency to escalate violence,” ACLU Center for Justice senior counsel Kara Dansky told AP. The ACLU has been investigating the use of military equipment in US police forces since 2012 as part of their campaign against the militarization of law enforcement under the slogan: “Towns don’t need tanks.” 

On its website, the NGO records examples of occasions when police have used military equipment in situations when it was unnecessary, disproportionate or counterproductive. 

In one such incident earlier this year, police in North Dakota used a $154 million MQ-9 Predator B drone to arrest a family of anti-government separatists who had refused to return six cows who had wandered onto their property to their owners. Local police borrowed the drone from the Department of Homeland Security, the ACLU reported. 

Apple, the Albany County sheriff, argued that the police force was not becoming more militarized and was instead preparing itself for every eventuality. 

“Our problem is we have to make sure we are prepared to respond to every type of crisis,” he said. For example, he said, if SWAT teams need to get close to a shooter or protect passers-by, a MRAP would be the vehicle for the job. 

The ACLU argues that MRAPs might just be the tip of the iceberg, as it is not known “how militarized the police have become, and how extensively federal money is incentivizing this trend.” 

original link from

http://rt.com/usa/us-police-mraps-iraq-251/

20 questions about the Iran nuclear deal: What it says, what's at stake, what's next

20 questions about the Iran nuclear deal: What it says, what's at stake, what's next

Chief negotiator Catherine Ashton and Iran's foreign minister announce agreement on Iran's nuclear program early on Sunday, November 24 in Geneva. From left to right: British Foreign Secretary William Hague, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius.

HIDE CAPTION

Iran nuclear deal reached

<<

<

1

2

3

4

5

>

>>

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Iran started developing nuclear program in the 1970s, but U.S. pulled support during Islamic Revolution
• Since the revolution, the West has worried Iran may produce atomic weapons
• France, U.S., UK, Russia, China, Germany -- and Iran -- have been negotiating deal
• The deal slows Iran's program in exchange for lighter sanctions

(CNN) -- When it comes to Iran and the West, the relationship has been convoluted for decades. And this deal is no different. After days of negotiations, six world powers and Tehran reached an agreement that calls on Iran to limit its nuclear activities in return for lighter sanctions. It's complicated politics coupled with complicated science.

Here's a quick primer to get you up to speed.

How did Iran's nuclear program start?

The United States launched a nuclear program with Iran in 1957. Back then, the Shah ruled Iran and the two countries were still friends. With backing from the United States, Iran started developing its nuclear power program in the 1970s. But the U.S. pulled its support when the Shah was overthrown during the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

Who are these 'six world powers'?

Diplomacy leads to Iran nuclear deal

The talks involved the P5+1 group comprising diplomats from the U.S., UK, France, Russia, China and Germany -- and of course Iran. The group has been meeting in Geneva for days in hopes of reaching a diplomatic solution.

Reaction to deal in Tehran

Is Iran the only nation with a nuclear program?

Iran deal 'important step forward'

No.

Eight nations are known to have nuclear weapons,including all the P5+1 countries, except for Germany. Iran's neighbor, Israel, has always declined to confirm whether it has any, although the Federation of American Scientists estimates it has about 80 atomic weapons. But since the 1979 revolution, concerns have escalated that Iran could enrich uranium and make atomic weapons. Iran has maintained its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes.

Why have the other nations not faced as much scrutiny?

For nations such as India and Pakistan, no action was taken partly because they never signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. "There was very little that the U.S. could've done to stop Pakistan," says Mark Hibbs, a nuclear policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Iran, on the other hand, signed the treaty. And as a result, its program was put under the spotlight. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency had information suggesting Iran conducted activities it hasn't declared in the past.

Why is Iran's nuclear program considered such a threat?

Since its revolution, the West has worried Iran could use its nuclear program to produce atomic weapons using highly-enriched uranium. A decade ago, nuclear inspectors from the international agency announced they had found traces of highly-enriched uranium at a plant in Natanz. Iran temporarily halted enrichment, but resumed enriching again in 2006, insisting enrichment was allowed under its agreement with the IAEA.

Enough with the background. Let's talk about the deal that was reached.

It's more of an interim agreement before the deal. Described as an initial, six-month deal, the White House says it includes "substantial limitations that will help prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon." In short, it slows the country's nuclear development program in exchange for lifting some sanctions while a more formal agreement is worked out.

It's not permanent, so why is it a big deal?

For years, Iran and Western powers have left negotiating tables in disagreement, frustration and open animosity. But the diplomatic tone changed after Iran's election this year, which saw President Hassan Rouhani take over. " For the first time in nearly a decade, we have halted the progress of the Iranian nuclear program," U.S. President Barack Obama says.

Iran happy with 'first step'

What about the stockpiles Iran already has?

As part of the deal, Iran will be required to dilute its stockpile of uranium that had been enriched to 20%. While uranium isn't bomb-grade until it's enriched to 90% purity, "once you're at 20%, you're about 80% of the way there," Hibbs says. The deal also mandates Iran halt all enrichment above 5% and dismantle the technical equipment required to do that. Before the end of the initial phase of the deal, all its stockpiles should be diluted below 5% or converted to a form not suitable for further enrichment, the deal states.

Why 5%?

Iran consistently says it's enriching uranium and building nuclear reactors only for peaceful civilian energy needs. Nuclear power plants use uranium that is enriched to 5%. It's the fuel that the plants use to generate electricity.

What else will Iran have to do?

Iran would also have to cut back on constructing new centrifuges and enrichment facilities, and freeze essential work on its heavy-water reactor under development at Arak. That facility could be used as a source of plutonium -- a second pathway to a nuclear bomb. The reactor under construction southwest of Tehran had been a sticking point in earlier negotiations.

What's a centrifuge?

It's a mechanism used to enrich uranium.

How will we know Iran is living up to its end of the deal?

Iran is expected to provide daily access to inspectors from the international agency, IAEA. The inspectors will be expected to visit centrifuge assembly and storage facilities, uranium mills and the Arak reactor, among others. The P5+1 and Iran will also form a joint task force on the issue.

What if it doesn't fulfill its commitment?

The international community will add more sanctions -- and pressure.

What's in it for Iran?

Billions of dollars.

As part of preliminary steps, the world powers involved in the talks will provide "limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible relief to Iran."

The deal calls for no new nuclear-related sanctions in the six-month period if Iran keeps its end of the bargain. The world powers will also suspend sanctions on various items, including gold and petrochemical exports. That suspension will provide Iran with about $1.5 billion in revenue, according to the White House. Sanctions relief will also target other areas, including government funds from restricted Iranian accounts for its students in other countries.

But the White House says the $7 billion in total relief is just a small fraction. "The vast majority of Iran's approximately $100 billion in foreign exchange holdings are inaccessible or restricted by sanctions," it says.

What's not in the deal?

A better deal would have included Iranians shipping out their highly enriched uranium to be converted elsewhere, says Aaron David Miller, vice president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "It would have been better ... if Iran had much more of their nuclear infrastructure put out of use. But that's the deal they got."

How did the sanctions come to be?

Seven years ago, the U.N. Security Council passed sanctions against Iran for failing to suspend its nuclear program. Sanctions that initially targeted Iran's nuclear capability expanded to include bans on arms sales, Iranian oil and certain financial institutions, including the country's central bank. This has crippled its economy and made Iran a pariah in the international community. Oil revenues have plummeted, and the local currency had dropped 80% in value by 2012. Iranians have faced spiraling inflation and layoffs.

Why isn't Israel applauding the deal?

The two neighbors and archrivals have been at each other's throats for years. Israel says it has the most to lose if Iran develops a nuclear bomb. It has repeatedly warned the West to tread warily when dealing with Tehran. And Israeli lawmakers are not happy that their greatest ally, the United States, has disregarded their warning and struck an interim deal with Iran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the agreement a "historic mistake" that his country isn't bound by.

So much tension between Iran and Israel, why?

It wasn't always this way. After the birth of Israel in 1948, the two nations enjoyed a "honeymoon" that lasted until just before the 1979 revolution, says David Menashri, professor emeritus of Tel Aviv University. Israel even supplied weapons to Iran to help it fight their common enemy, Iraq. But the Islamic revolution that overthrew the Shah marked a turning point. The Islamic republic, led by Shiite clerics in the predominantly Shiite nation, saw Israel as an illegitimate state with no right to exist, certainly not amid Muslim nations. Years later, Israel began to regard Iran and its support of global terror as a chief threat. Those concerns escalated when international inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium at a power plant in Iran.

Who else is unhappy?

Saudi Arabia. It's a majority Sunni country. Iran is majority Shiite. Saudi Arabia, like Israel, is troubled by Iran's growing clout in the Middle East. "The Saudi government has been very concerned about these negotiations with Iran and unhappy at the prospect of a deal with Iran," a Saudi government official who is not authorized to speak to the media told CNN.

So, will this interim deal work?

There are no perfect agreements. And the success of any interim deal will be measured "in months and years, not in minutes," says Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment. Whether Iran is serious about mothballing its nuclear ambitions remains to be seen. There may be sizable obstacles that aren't yet apparent. There are certainly aspects where the deal stopped short. That waits to be seen. For now, Miller says, don't break open the champagne bottles just yet.

original link from

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/24/world/meast/iran-nuclear-deal-qa/