Unions battle for survival in key strongholds as court cases challenge forced dues

The future of public and private unions in two big labor-friendly states may be at stake as foes mount aggressive legal challenges over the long-controversial practice of mandatory dues.
The court cases in Illinois and California revolve around so-called "fair share" payments, or the dues unions extract from workers whose jobs stand to benefit from collective bargaining -- whether or not the workers are technically union members. Unions argue workers should have to pay their "fair share" of the costs of negotiating and administering a union contract, so they’re not getting a free ride from the union’s efforts.
But workers are often surprised to see money taken from their paychecks, without their consent.
“I really found out about it when I got my first paycheck and there was the fair share that was pulled out,” said Mark Janus, who works as a child support specialist with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.  
The fees taken out of Janus’ check amounted to about $46 a month, every month, for the eight years he’s been on the job. “I figured I’d paid over $4,000 so far,” he said. The money Janus unintentionally paid went to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, also known as AFSCME, which represents employees in his office.
Janus is now one of three plaintiffs who have joined with Republican Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner in a lawsuit to overturn the state's so-called fair share law.
“I don't feel that the union represents me 100 percent in what I believe and what I like to do,” Janus explained. “And nobody asked me if I wanted to join the union, they just said 'here's a job, you're in the union.'"
The intention of the lawsuit is to get a federal judge in Chicago, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, to declare the fee for non-member dues unconstitutional.
In addition, Rauner issued an executive order with the same purpose.
“This is a fundamental issue protecting employees’ rights, their freedom of speech, and their rights as employees,” Rauner said.
But Tim Drea, the Illinois AFL-CIO secretary treasurer, said “all state employees benefit from what the unions do on wages and bargaining ... health care and pension benefits.”
While the fair share law requires that no money raised from the fees be used by the unions for political purposes, Rauner said that’s not possible when it comes to a state employees union.
“By their very nature government political activities are political. They’re inside the government and advocating with politicians, so by definition it’s all political,” Rauner told Fox News.
On the West Coast, a similar battle is taking place that some claim could put an end to the teachers' union.
In Friedrich v. California Teachers’ Association, 10 teachers filed suit over a state law requiring dues to the union they don’t support. The teachers said the law violates their constitutional rights.
The fair-share labor law was formed as a result of a 1977 court case called Abood v. The Detroit Board of Education. In that case, public school teachers in Detroit sought to overturn a requirement that they pay dues to the teachers' union on the grounds they didn’t support the union activities or collective bargaining.  
The court sided with the unions and determined that non-members can be charged fees, though the money from fees could not be used for political purposes.  
Since that decision came down, about half the states in the U.S. -- the ones that are not right-to-work states -- require workers in union-backed jobs who don’t want to join a union to pay their “fair share.”  
In the Midwest, where auto workers, Teamsters and other unions have had a stronghold for years, the right-to-work plan has been met with massive protests and multiple court battles -- yet right-to-work laws have passed in Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana.
Now that battle lines are being draw in Illinois, the Land of Lincoln state may become the last stand in America’s heartland for the unions. Without a policy of mandatory dues, unions anywhere stand to lose revenue and members.
“In half the other states in the U.S., government workers have a right to choose whether they will give money to a union. In Illinois, government workers don't have the right to make that choice,” said Jacob Huebert, an attorney for the Liberty Justice Center, which is representing plaintiffs in the Illinois lawsuit.
Huebert said he’s encouraged to test the issue because of the court’s response to another challenge to the union dues requirement by an Illinois woman named Pam Harris.
Harris didn’t want to have to pay dues to a state workers union just because she’d taken on a job as home health care worker for her mentally and physically disabled son. The Supreme Court ruled that Harris was not a state employee and therefore didn’t have to pay dues.
As part of its opinion in the Harris case, the court stated that the Abood decision may not withstand a challenge. The Liberty Justice Center was inspired to mount that challenge.
Labor leaders, who plan to “mount a vigorous defense” to the lawsuits, claim opponents are just trying to weaken and choke off unions in general, especially in Illinois where negotiations for a new contract are taking place.
Drea said he feels confident the court will rule in favor of the fair-share decision, but he worries the continuous battle resulting in right-to-work states “is just a further continuation of the race to the bottom” for Americans.
Drea also warned that a blow to the unions would be a blow to middle-class America. “We believe the unions built the middle class and we're going to do everything we can to make sure the middle class survives,” he said.
The Supreme Court may decide before summer whether to take on the California case.  
As for the Illinois case, a federal judge in Chicago will decide on it first, though the plaintiffs hope it eventually makes it to the high court as well.   

Obama administration claims Iran deal a ‘forever agreement,’ despite expiration dates

The Obama administration mounted a new argument Monday for why skeptical lawmakers and U.S. allies should back the preliminary nuclear agreement with Iran, calling it a “forever agreement” that would block all pathways to a nuclear weapon and set up tough international inspections with no end date.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, in a rare appearance at the White House press briefing, used that term in defending the deal he helped strike in Switzerland.
“I want to say this is not an agreement for 10 years or 15 years or 20 years. It is a long-term agreement with a whole set of phases,” he said. “And if Iran earns over this time period trust and confidence in their peaceful objectives, well then over time the constraints will, in phases, ease up, but never get lower than the additional protocol and all of the access that it provides.
“So that's the way we’re thinking about it. It's not a fixed-year agreement. It's a forever agreement in a certain sense, with different stages.”
Yet, as Moniz acknowledged, the fact-sheet circulated by the White House last week includes a series of expiration dates for key components of the deal.
This includes:

• A commitment by Iran to reduce its centrifuges by two-thirds and enrich uranium with only 5,060 of them for 10 years. 
• A commitment by Iran not to enrich uranium at the Fordo facility for at least 15 years. 
• A commitment by Iran not to build any new facilities to enrich uranium for 15 years. 

Asked Monday how this could be considered “forever,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said they were referring to how Iran would have to submit to a new set of intrusive nuclear inspections, as part of provisions that have “no end date.”
Moniz likewise pointed to these comprehensive inspections – part of what he called “unprecedented” access and transparency -- in calling this a “forever agreement.” (Some of those inspection requirements still have end-dates on them, though much further out than 10 or 15 years.)
Moniz, a nuclear physicist, spoke at the White House as the Obama administration ramped up its campaign for a framework deal with Iran that has drawn criticism from congressional Republicans, the Israeli government and skeptical Arab allies of the U.S.
Under the agreement, Moniz said, all plutonium created as a byproduct of Iran's nuclear power production would be sent out of the country so it couldn't be used to make weapons. And international inspectors would watch over all stages to ensure Tehran sticks to the agreement. "This is not built upon trust, this is built upon hard-nosed requirements," Moniz said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been among the most vocal critics in airing concerns about how certain terms of the deal last for just 10 years.
For the near term, though, the Obama administration is perhaps most concerned about selling this deal to Congress, where lawmakers are set to soon consider bipartisan legislation giving Congress a say on any Iran deal.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Monday reiterated some of his concerns with the deal, citing the timeline spelled out in the framework unveiled last week.
“The parameters of the interim deal, in essence, establish an internationally recognized, 10-year nuclear research and development program. Until we know more about Iran's previous research, no nation can be sure of what Iran may have developed covertly already,” he said in a statement. McConnell vowed that the Senate would “respond legislatively” with the congressional review bill, which is set for a committee vote next week.
House Speaker John Boehner, meanwhile, linked from his Twitter page to a first-hand account of his call last week with Obama on the agreement.
“It would be naïve to suggest the Iranian regime will not continue to use its nuclear program, and any economic relief, to further destabilize the region,” Boehner said. “In the weeks ahead, Republicans and Democrats in Congress will continue to press this administration on the details of these parameters and the tough questions that remain unanswered. We will stand strong on behalf of the American people and everyone in the Middle East who values freedom, security, and peace.”
Obama continues to staunchly defend the framework agreement worked out with other world powers as a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" to prevent an Iranian bomb and bring longer-term stability to the Middle East. He insists the U.S. would stand by Israel if it were to come under attack, but acknowledged that his pursuit of diplomacy with Tehran has caused strain with the close ally.
"It's been a hard period," Obama said in an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. He added that it is "personally difficult" for him to hear his administration accused of not looking out for Israel's interests.
The framework reached with Iran last week clears the way for negotiators to hammer out technical details ahead of a June 30 deadline for a final deal.
He reiterated his opposition to the legislation that would give the U.S. Congress final say in approving or rejecting a deal, but said he hoped to find a path to allow Congress to "express itself."
Earnest on Monday urged Congress to at least wait until June to pass judgment on the plan, while still opposing any up-or-down vote in Congress.

State GOP lawmakers working to roll back gun restrictions after midterm wins

Conservatives emboldened by election victories are working to roll back gun restrictions in several states, while those on the other side of the debate are claiming success elsewhere in passing initiatives related to gun background checks.
On the pro-gun spectrum, for example, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback last week signed a bill to allow Kansans to carry concealed weapons in the state without training or a permit.
Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb told Fox News, "I think the voters spoke pretty loud and clear in November and elected a pretty pro-gun rights Congress as well as many statehouses across the country and we're seeing now lots of bills being sponsored...".
On the other side, Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said her group is focused on initiatives it can win with voters, rather than legislators.
"In 2013, we helped close the background check loophole in six states," Watts  said. "In 2014, we helped pass laws in red and blue states to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers."
Watts also pointed to the overwhelming passage of Initiative 594 by voters in Washington state last fall. That law expands the federal background check requirement for gun sales to private dealers, such as those now found at gun shows.
"The gun lobby has been so insidious in this country in taking away the responsibilities that go along with gun rights," Watts said. She added in an interview with Fox News that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has an annual budget of $350 million.
The NRA said that while its operating budget is close to that figure, a "small fraction" -- approximately $20 million -- goes toward what it calls 'political activity,' with the bulk spent on safety and training programs.
Moms Demand Action works with Everytown for Gun Safety, which is bankrolled by former New York City mayor and billionaire, Michael Bloomberg.
Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), told Fox News, "Billionaire Michael Bloomberg's tactics may be new, but the fight is the same. The NRA and our five million members stand ready to defend the Second Amendment wherever the battlefield. The majority of Americans do not want more gun control and we will fight tooth and nail to expose Bloomberg's lies and defeat his extreme gun control agenda. "
Prior to those comments, Watts explained her group's mission is about education." We're not anti-gun, we're not against the Second Amendment. We're about responsibilities that come along with gun rights and that includes things like background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people," she said.
Gottleib, who lives in Washington state where the Second Amendment Foundation is based, acknowledged he is aware of Everytown's tactics for voter initiatives, adding "...our big concern is buying ballot measures."
Part of the reason so much action is currently being seen at the state level is the sheer immobility on Capitol Hill. Currently, four national reciprocity bills, three in the House, one in the Senate, are before Congress. Passage of any of them would treat conceal carry permits much like driver's licenses - no matter the state in which it was issued, it would be valid nationwide.
But the NRA says right now it is looking more toward 2016 than this year's congressional session. These pieces of legislation need to garner a veto-proof majority because, "We have a president that hates the Second Amendment", said Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the NRA.
Watts compared the battle over gun rights to a marathon, not a sprint. "We're not going to find a law to fix every single problem in this country, right. Not every law stops every crime. But what we can do is put more laws in place to ensure things like background checks are happening," she said.
And as the NRA holds its annual meeting later this week in Nashville, where several presidential contenders are expected to speak, the opposition has its sights set on the future as well. "We're feeling a huge amount of momentum," Watts said. "Momentum around gun safety in this country and we believe that will continue into 2016 and beyond.”

Indiana Cartoon

Schiff says Al Qaeda having 'resurgence' amid Yemen chaos

California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said Sunday that Al Qaeda is having a “resurgence.”
"In Yemen the news is really all bad," Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told ABC's "This Week." "Just as we feared in the chaos ... Al Qaeda has had a resurgence."
The Al Qaeda offshoot group in the Arab Peninsula has taken advantage of the turmoil in Yemen since it started several weeks ago, using the chaos and deteriorating government to expand its foothold in southwest Asia.
“It’s absolutely a safe haven,” Michael Leiter, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told ABC.
He also said the administration's policy is correct, compared to the alternative of a massive American occupation.

"That doesn't mean that the administration's strategy is flawless, however," he said. "And I think had we put greater emphasis and resources in trying to deal with the governance issues in Yemen, this might have been prevented."

At least 500 people have been killed in the fighting as Shiite rebels known as Houthis continue to try to overthrow the Yemen government and as neighboring Saudi Arabia leads an airstrike campaign to stop the rebels.
Last week, AQAP took advantage of the fall of Mukalla -- the capital of Yemen's largest province, Hadramawt -- by freeing about 300 inmates from the city's main prison, including scores of militants, according to security officials.
Among those freed was Saudi-born Khaled Batrafi, a senior Al Qaeda operative believed to have masterminded past attacks, officials said. Also freed were 90 death row inmates convicted for a host of criminal offences, according to activists in the city.
The administration has referred to its efforts in Yemen as a “success story” and just several days ago continued to defend its strategy.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told MSNBC that U.S. policy "should not be graded against the success or the stability of the Yemeni government."
He also said the strategy has been to try to bolster the government in Yemen, which has for years been in a chaotic state and the administration’s objective “has never been to try to build a Jeffersonian democracy.”
“The goal is to make sure Yemen cannot be a safe haven that extremists can use to attack the West and to attack the United States," he said.
Late last month, the administration removed U.S. personnel from the Arab country, as the situation deteriorated.
President Obama has said several times in recent years that Al Qaeda has been “decimated” or is “on the run.”
He also has submitted to Congress his Authorization of Military Force against ISIL Terrorists plan. However, neither chamber has acted on the proposal.
Schiff has drafted his own plan and says Congress has to authorize such military action and that he doesn’t want U.S. ground troops getting involved like they did for years in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Muslim groups attack Egyptian Copts over church honoring Christians killed by ISIS

Relatives of the Coptic Christians beheaded last month by jihadists in Libya – their deaths immortalized in a gory video set against the backdrop of a Mediterranean beach – are facing new extremist-Muslim violence as they seek to build a church to honor their murdered loved ones.
An angry mob in the Upper Egyptian village of Al Our – the proposed site of the church because it was home to 13 of the 21 Christians murdered in the mass “beachfront” decapitation – descended on the community’s current church after the midday Islamic prayer Friday and chanted that they’d never allow construction of the new place of worship to begin, witnesses told Egyptian activists in the U.S.

“There were already cars on fire. People had been bloodied. Stones and bricks had been thrown.”- Mina Abdelmalak, Coptic Christian

Things turned far uglier after nightfall, the witnesses said, as a smaller number of individuals threw Molotov cocktails and stones at the church, injuring several people, and setting cars ablaze, including one that belonged to a relative of one of the victims of the Libyan massacre.
“The police came, but after the attack,” said Mina Abdelmalak, a Coptic Christian living in Washington who is in close contact with the witnesses to the events in Al Our. “There were already cars on fire. People had been bloodied. Stones and bricks had been thrown.”
Some protesters also appeared at the family home of massacre victim Samuel Alham Wilson, but, in a gesture that provided some hope, were chased off by Muslim neighbors when the protesters started throwing stones.
Copts are the native Christians of Egypt, accounting for about 10 percent of the country’s 88 million people.
While they have traditionally faced varying levels of persecution in the mainly Muslim country, the Copts of Al Our -- a village on the Nile about 125 miles south of Cairo -- have additionally been in deep mourning since the Islamic State released its video Feb. 15 showing the beheading of the Christians -- 20 of them Copts, the other from Ghana.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Feb. 15, 2015: Men in orange jumpsuits purported to be Egyptian Christians held captive by the Islamic State (IS) are marched by armed men along a beach.

The 13 from Al Our – like their fellow Christians with whom they died – had gone to Libya to seek work because their poverty-stricken home communities offered none or little that was viable.
Abdelmalak told FoxNews.com that the Al Our Copts had sought permission from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to build a church to honor the loss of their loved ones and the others who died with them.
Until recently, such high-level permission was necessary to carry out even minor repairs on churches in Egypt, while similar permissions are not necessary for the building of mosques.
But the Friday attacks on the Copts have driven a further wedge between the village’s Christian and Muslim communities -- and are seen as particularly insensitive in light of the losses suffered because of the massacre in Libya.
“This is a classic issue in Egypt,” said Abdelmalak. “Even after you struggle to get permission from the president to build a church, you still have to face the mob, which rejects the idea of having a church built in their neighborhood.”
A Coptic news Facebook page displays pictures of men with facial injuries it says they suffered during the attack on the church.
“I fear that the security [services] will as usual issue a report saying that the situation in the village [is so bad] that [they] will not [now] allow us to build a new church,” says the author of the entry, according to a translation from Arabic.
After receiving presidential permission for construction, the Coptic community bought some land, but local Muslims objected to its positioning at the entrance to the village, according to Daily News Egypt, which publishes in English.
A new location outside the village is now eyed following a meeting between Muslim and Coptic residents that the regional governor brokered.
“This has been effectively imposed on the Coptic residents,” Abdelmalak said. “Dictates to the Christian community are always presented as agreements.”
A report in Arabic in the al-Masry al-Youm newspaper said “tens of residents” protested against the building of the new church, despite presidential approval for the project.
“Witnesses from the village said protesters repeated chants saying, ‘Whatever you do, there won’t be a church on the ground.’”
Abdelmalak said the words in original Arabic rhymed and would have instilled fear by sounding like the aggressive chants heard in European soccer stadiums.
He added that police arrested several members of the mob, but released them a few hours later.

2016 GOP hopefuls define themselves as they weigh in on ISIS, economy, array of key issues

Potential 2016 presidential candidates have for months test driven their foreign and domestic policy positions in interviews and speeches across the country. But the real test for many voters, as is often the situation, is how the hopefuls response to world-shaping events.
Most of the debate has been limited to the wide field of potential Republican candidates with ObamaCare and how to handle the growing threat of the Islamic State largely dominating the early part of this year.
And the Obama administration’s tentative nuclear deal last week with Iran has been no exception.
“Obama’s dangerous deal with Iran rewards an enemy, undermines our allies and threatens our safety,” said Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, an early 2016 favorite.
Like all of the potential GOP candidates, Walker has used the agreement to strike a sharp contrast with Democrats.
He also has vowed, if elected, to pull the U.S. from the international deal on “day one” of his presidency.
Jeb Bush, another top potential candidate and a former Florida governor, said the reported details of the Iran deal include significant concessions to “a nation whose leaders call for death to America and the destruction of Israel.”
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the only major GOP candidate who has officially declared a 2016 bid, is taking a more reserved approach, saying after the framework deal was reached Thursday that he was still examining the exact details.
However, he has been far more outspoken on the issue of ObamaCare and the threat from the Islamic State and other extremist groups.
OBAMACARE
To be sure, Cruz has been among the most forceful in his opposition to ObamaCare, considering his efforts in September 2013 to “defund” President Obama’s signature health-care law forced a partial government shutdown.
Nevertheless, the effort, which angered Republicans as well as Democrats, was just one of the first-term senator’s breakout moves that put him on the national political map.
The commitment to repeal the 2010 law, which even remained strong enough last year to help Republicans win the Senate, was largely muted when the Supreme Court decided several months ago to take up the issue of federal subsidies for some ObamaCare insurance buyers.
Still, lawmakers and potential 2016 candidates such as Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio have moved to fill the void with a plan if the high court declares subsides in some states unconstitutional.
Rubio, set to officially announce next week whether he will run in 2016, recently outlined his plan in a FoxNew.com op-ed that offers refundable tax credits to help Americans who lose their subsidies to buy health insurance.
“After the downfall of ObamaCare  -- which I believe has been inevitable from the beginning, but may be precipitated by the Supreme Court decision later this year -- a plan such as this will restore our people’s access to quality care,” Rubio wrote.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told an enthusiastic crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February that he still wants to repeal “every single word” of ObamaCare.
ECONOMY
Former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina is trying to establish herself within the crowded potential GOP field as the candidate who best understands executive decision making, beyond the being party’s only female candidate so far.
Fiorina also recently told “Fox News Sunday” that she can appeal to voters with her “deep understanding of how the economy actually works, having started as a secretary and become the chief executive of the largest technology company in the world.”
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has focused in part on what he considers an under-performing economy under Obama and recently in Iowa discussed a plan to fix the federal tax code, which he thinks would improve the situation for Americans.
He said the country’s 2 percent annual growth in gross domestic product shows the recovery from the recession is "the worst in modern history."
"The fact is that we tax too much in this country already, and we tax in a way that's much too complicated," he reportedly said. "We tax that money at every step along the way.”
ISIS
The rise and growth of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq continues to be a global concern, though the re-emergence of Al Qaeda in Yemen has recently dominated headlines.
Dr. Ben Carson, another potential GOP candidate, recently told NBC: “We have to eradicate (ISIS) now. We have to use every means possible to do that."
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and one of Capitol Hill’s most hawkish members, has suggested that coalition airstrikes alone will not stop ISIS and told CBS that 10,000 American "boots on the ground" would be needed to stop the Islamic extremist group in Iraq and Syria.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul says he has been mis-characterized as an isolationist and that his plan to defeat ISIS would largely be based on arming the Kurds, the disenfranchised ethnic groups in Iraq that has been successfully fighting ISIS for months.
“The only people over there that can fight and have been showing some ability to fight are the Kurds,” Paul told Yahoo News. “The president has been sending weapons to Baghdad. They’re not adequately getting to Kurdistan. I would fund them directly. I would take some of the weaponry that we have left over in Afghanistan and I would send that directly to the Kurds.”
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
The religious freedom law that recently passed in Indiana is being supported by social conservatives and potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates Bush, Carson, Jindal, Rubio and former Pennsylvania Rick Santorum.
The law prohibits the state and local governments from infringing on a person's religious beliefs without a "compelling" interest. Critics say it opens the possibility that businesses could discriminate against gays, lesbians and others.
“It's never been used for that purpose,” Santorum said Wednesday on Fox News' “Fox & Friends.” “This law is not a new law. … I voted for it, and so did almost everybody else in the Congress. We believe that the First Amendment should be in practice in America, that people should have religious liberty. ... It doesn't mean that automatically anybody who claims a religious exemption of cause wins the debate. It says it has to be considered.
A similar federal law was sign in 1993 and Arkansas lawmakers passed their version last week.

Netanyahu urges US to seek 'better deal' with Iran over its nuclear program

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged the U.S. and other world powers to seek a firmer deal with Iran Sunday over that country's nuclear program and said that he’s "not trying to kill any deal,” just a “bad deal.”
"I think the alternatives are not either this bad deal or war. I think there's a third alternative. And that is standing firm, ratcheting up the pressure, until you get a better deal," the Israeli Prime Minister told CNN's "State of the Union". "A better deal would roll back Iran's vast nuclear infrastructure and require Iran to stop its aggression in the region, its terror worldwide, and its calls and actions to annihilate the state of Israel."
On Thursday, the United States and five other world powers reached agreement with Iranian officials on the framework of a deal to limit Tehran’s nuclear enrichment program. The deadline for a final agreement is June 30.
The deal aims to cut significantly into Iran's bomb-making technology while giving Tehran relief from international sanctions. The commitments, if implemented, would substantially pare down Iranian nuclear assets for a decade and restrict others for an additional five years.
On Sunday, the Associated Press reported that it had obtained a document drawn up by experts in Netanyahu's office that gives a glimpse of the arguments the Israeli leader plans to raise, targeting vague language in the system of inspections and its failure to address issues beyond the nuclear program.
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Netanyahu said the agreement outline "could be a historic bad deal because it leaves the preeminent terrorist state of our time a vast nuclear infrastructure ...  Thousands of centrifuges will be left, not a singular facility, including underground facilities will be shut down."
Netanyahu added that the framework leaves Iran with “the capacity to produce material for many nuclear bombs.”
On ABC's "This Week", Netanyahu also warned that a deal could “spark a nuclear arms race among the Sunni countries in the Middle East.”
On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Netanyahu said “restrictions placed on Iran are temporary, after a few years, Iran will have unlimited access.”
According to a U.S. document summarizing last week's agreement, Tehran is ready to reduce its number of centrifuges, the machines that can spin uranium gas to levels used in nuclear warheads, and submit to aggressive monitoring and inspections of its nuclear facilities.
But the Israeli analysis claims the system of inspections is not as thorough as proclaimed because it does not explicitly force the Iranians to open their sites "anywhere, anytime."
It also claims the agreement is vague about what happens to Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, a key ingredient in producing nuclear bombs, or how sanctions might be re-imposed if Iran violates the deal.
While Iran is not supposed to enrich uranium with its advanced centrifuges for 10 years, the deal permits limited "research and development" of the advanced centrifuges, according to the U.S. document. Israeli officials say this means that Iran could immediately put these centrifuges into action after the deal expires or breaks down.
Netanyahu said Sunday that Iran has “cheated in the past on this, in this case, with this deal, what’s been illegitimate is being legitimized not only the ability to maintain but in a few years to increase it, that’s very dangerous.”
However, President Obama staunchly defended the framework of the nuclear agreement with Iran as a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to prevent a bomb and bring longer-term stability to the Middle East.
"It's been a hard period," Obama said in an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman published Sunday. He added that it is "personally difficult" for him to hear his administration accused of not looking out for Israel's interests.
He insisted the U.S. would stand by Israel if it were to come under attack, but acknowledged that his pursuit of diplomacy with Tehran has caused strain with the close ally.
Obama argued that successful negotiations presented the most effective way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but insisted he would keep all options on the table if Tehran were to violate the terms.
"I've been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch, and I think they should understand that we mean it," Obama said. "But I say that hoping that we can conclude this diplomatic arrangement — and that it ushers a new era in U.S.-Iranian relations — and, just as importantly, over time, a new era in Iranian relations with its neighbors."
Obama said there are many details that still need to be worked out with the Iranians and cautioned that there would be "real political difficulties" in implementing an agreement in both countries. He reiterated his opposition to a legislation that would give the U.S. Congress final say in approving or rejecting a deal, but said he hoped to find a path to allow Congress to "express itself."
The White House plans an aggressive campaign to sell the deal to Congress, as well as to Israel and skeptical Arab allies who worry about Iran's destabilizing activity in the region. The president has invited leaders of six Gulf nations to Washington this spring and said he wanted to "formalize" U.S. assistance.