For Obama, and the US, it is essential to the ratification of the Treaty on Nuclear Iran

Reached an agreement with Iran to the nuclear issue, is now the way of ratification of the Treaty to worry about Obama. The President of the United States must deal with the two houses of Congress, where the majority is in favor of the Republican Party firmly opposed to what has been achieved in Vienna, because it fears a strengthening of Iran as a regional power and as new nuclear power . In fact, according to Obama, the treaty specifically aimed at averting this second hypothesis for at least ten years, thanks to the controls provided and signed by Tehran. Apart from the mistrust and ideological influence of the Israeli state on House Republicans, the terms of the Treaty actually appear a guarantee in the short term to prevent nuclear proliferation in the country of Iran, while the long term, trying to encourage greater openness to Iran world, to promote a political change in a less conservative, which can no longer be a danger in ten years. The goal is, that is, to have a period of time long enough to allow a different view to the Iranian people and its rulers, when Tehran may, if he decides to do, become a nuclear power. Postponing this time, it means do not allow it now, with the influence still too strong conservatives and religious at the expense of smaller scope of the progressives. The reasoning is too linear to be contradicted, for reasons that are practical and not of principle or political party, because the sanctions are envisaged certainly effective if Tehran were to break the pacts. One of the reasons for the refusal Republican would be to prevent a victory of Obama in foreign policy and deprive him of a great success on the eve of the expiration of his term, a factor which could then be reflected in the race to the White House, thereby adversely affect the new Democratic candidate. This scenario is possible, but it would make a bad return to the political weight of the United States, reducing, in fact, the international prestige, easily made up for the new president, of any party will be. The reduced credibility as a world leader of diplomacy could be a result of carefully by Congress, with many challenges still open and far from resolution. Frustrate a job that lasted years, which can allow, among other things, to break the isolation of Iran, to get it back into the diplomatic scene, it would be incorporated in the international world, as a dangerous self-harm, no sign of a state and not cohesive reliable in the management of international problems; this could result in a power vacuum difficult to fill because there is an actor on the world stage in a position to replace the US as the main power. Obama, then, is strong these arguments to try to convince, not only the Republicans, but also those democrats who are not convinced of the goodness of the agreement. The American legislative mechanism provides that in case of refusal of Congress, the president can veto, which, however, can in turn be rejected if two-thirds of the rooms are voting against the presidential decision. Obama has a good scope to get the win, but not so clearly and Israeli propaganda is working to make the agreement fail. To try to reassure Tel Aviv, the White House promised increased aid for the defense of the country, especially in view of the discussion the agreement was renewed to support the defense of the country Israel, which is due to expire. Just in relation to this theme the Israeli military has already made specific requests to the Americans, which deal on missile defense and the exchange of information. With these issues in play, Tel Aviv will not go too much against the goals of Obama and the greater part of the Democratic Party, because, for now, the Republicans do not seem to favorites in the race for the White House. In any case, within Israel there are opinions favorable to the agreement, which are based directly on the reasons for Obama.