Talks between the P5+1 group of countries and Iran remained incomplete as diplomats faced a Monday night deadline. Numerous questions about Tehran’s nuclear program were still unanswered.
On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry held talks with Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif and the European Union’s chief negotiator, Catherine Ashton. Their meeting was part of the larger P5+1 discussions that, in their latest form, have lasted for more than a year. The P5+1 consists the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the U.S., the United Kingdom, Russia, China and France) plus Germany.
Selling an agreement will be difficult for both sides. In the U.S. many Democrats and Republicans oppose any deal with Iran. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani will need the approval of hard-liners at home, many of whom don’t want any deal with the United States.
By most accounts, one of the main sticking points between the two sides is how much sanction relief Iran would get in an exchange for closing down a significant part of its nuclear program. One of the reasons Washington is reluctant to lift sanctions is Tehran’s refusal to dismantle most of its centrifuges, used for enriching uranium.
During Al Jazeera America’s Sunday night segment The Week Ahead, Thomas Drayton spoke to Emad Kiyaei, a researcher for the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University, and to Olli Heinonen, a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Gevernment, who joined the conversation from Watertown, Massachusetts.
Kiyaei said there are two main issues at hand, one technical and the other political. “On the technical aspect, the two sides have bridged a lot of their differences. There still needs to be a political will for us to be able to push this nuclear deal forward.” He said that neither the U.S. nor Iran genuinely wants this deal to move forward and that delaying it is in their best interests.
Heinonen said that there has been progress over the past year but the biggest problem is defining the practical enrichment needs of Iran.
When asked who would benefit the most from a nuclear deal, Kiyaei said the international community and the region would benefit. “If Iran and the U.S. come to a resolution, it is the key to opening up bilateral relations to discuss an array of issues that are not just in the national interest of Iran but also the United States and regional powers.” He said it would open the possibility of discussions about fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), improving Persian Gulf security and seeking stability in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. He added that the key is ending the decades-long rift in relations between the U.S. and Iran.
Relations have been frosty between the two countries for decades, but that wasn’t always the case. The U.S. sold Iran its first nuclear research reactor in 1967, a friendship that fell apart 12 years later after the shah was overthrown and Iranian revolutionaries held 52 Americans hostage for more than a year.
Last year, when President Barack Obama reached out to Rouhani to work together on a deal, the two leaders’ brief telephone conversation was the first high-level contact between the two countries in 34 years.
Although Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, the U.S. and the rest of the international community want to make sure Tehran isn’t able to create a nuclear weapon within a year of beginning to pursue one. Although Israel is not part of the official talks, its leaders have been pushing for a halt to Iran’s nuclear program, not just a downgrade.
Heinonen said an extension is expected because it’s too late in the game to step away from a possible deal.
On Monday, according to The Associated Press, a well-placed Western diplomat said that elements were falling into place for an agreement to allow the talks  to continue for more than seven months. The diplomat told the AP that a broad agreement should be completed by March 1 of next year, with the final details to worked out by July 1.
Kiyaei said agreement on three main points is necessary to secure a deal: verifying that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful, monitoring it properly and putting in place transparency measures to ensure Iranian honesty.

Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline has been a controversial endeavor. The bill passed the House of Representatives 252-161 on Friday for the ninth time, although President Barack Obama has not publicly said whether he would move forward with the project. It’s an oil pipeline system that would run from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, moving about 830,000 barrels of crude oil a day, and would more easily allow Canada to sell its oil to the rest of the world.

The Senate is set to vote on the bill this week, but the legislation is being delayed by a court battle in Nebraska, and Obama said he wants to resolve all the legal issues before he is presented with a bill to sign. The Department of State has been reviewing the proposal because the pipeline crosses an international border.

Many groups opposed to the project. Farmers, ranchers and environmentalists are concerned about the adverse effects on climate change and the safety of groundwater around the pipeline. The State Department argues, however, that the oil will be produced regardless of whether it is transported by the pipeline or some other means.
During Al Jazeera America’s Sunday night segment The Week Ahead, Richelle Carey spoke to Alex Epstein, an author and the president of the Center for Industrial Progress, and to Anthony Swift, an attorney at the National Resources Defense Council.
“A pipeline is a means of expanding access to oil,” said Epstein. “It means more people can drive, fly and use modern agricultural equipment. I think the benefits of oil far outweigh the risks and side effects.”
Proponents of the pipeline say it will create thousands of jobs and boost the economy. The chairman of the House Rules Committee, Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, said on Friday that it will “bolster energy security and inject billions of dollars into our economy.”
In a clip from the ABC News show “This Week,” Russ Girling, the CEO of TransCanada, told Martha Raddatz, “The Department of State’s own report says it will create 42,000 jobs and a $3.5 billion GDP increase of the U.S. economy [translating to] $2 billion in wages.”
Epstein said, “Oil is a global market. The more that’s produced in the whole system, the more prices go down.”
Swift, however, argued, “Tar sands crude is very expensive. It does not fit in a world of cheap energy or cheap oil.” He said he believes the major disadvantages of this pipeline will be its undoing.
Al Jazeera’s David Ariosto reported that the controversy has been unprecedented for a pipeline and has taken center stage in national politics, even straining trade relations with Canada.
“Understand what this project is,” Obama has said. “It is providing the opportunity of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. That doesn’t have an impact on U.S. gas prices.”
The Keystone XL pipeline is an addition to the existing Keystone pipeline, which runs from Canada to Oklahoma. The new part would allow oil to be transported to refineries in Texas though channels put in place last year. Canada is the world’s fifth-largest oil producer and sends most of its crude exports to U.S. refineries.
Also strongly opposed to the project are Native American communities living along the pipeline’s route. It’s expected to run through the Sac and Fox Nation, a patchwork of land that belongs to 38 Native tribes in Oklahoma. Each tribe has sovereignty over its land and affairs, something that would be disrupted by the pipeline’s construction.
Native Americans in the Black Hills of South Dakota worry that any spills could contaminate their water supply with oil and chemicals. It would affect seven Native American reservations nearby. Some residents say the pipeline violates 19th century treaties they made with the U.S. government over land rights.
“We’re finding that among the indigenous communities of people who live in the area of the Athabasca River [in Canada], there are cancer rates far higher than you would expect,” said Swift. “We’re beginning to nail down some really significant impacts associated with tar sands production. And once a tar sand spill happens in a body of water, it’s very difficult to bring it back to its original state.”

President Obama is Asia for a 10-day trip. He will attend regional summits as a means of implementing his pivot to Asia strategy that redirects U.S. attention to the region.
It will be the first time in two years that Obama will be attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit, hosted this year by Beijing. China’s growing economic power has many in the region worried about its influence. Washington is also concerned about China’s growing power as a counter to its own influence on the global stage. Beijing, on the other hand, views U.S. interest in the region as a means of containing China’s power.

The president's second stop will be in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, where he will meet leaders from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In Myanmar, he is expected to push for humanitarian reforms in the country, where democratic reforms have slowed since his last visit in 2012.
His final stop will be in Brisbane, Australia for a G20 Summit that will bring together as many as 4,000 delegates. Among a host of topics on the agenda will be development, energy, and global institutions.
During Al Jazeera America’s Sunday night segment “The Week Ahead,” Thomas Drayton was joined by Isaac Stone Fish, asia editor at Foreign Policy; and Ed Gresser, executive director of Progressive Economy, for a discussion of the political, military and economic issues surrounding the president’s trip.
“Over the last four or five years, especially since the financial crisis, China has been a lot more assertive,” says Stone Fish. “They do still see the United States as a super power, but they don’t see it as the only super power. Though they don’t actually say it, they now see themselves as equals to the United States.”
Gresser says Obama’s image is not as bad and many think, despite the recent Republican takeover of Congress in the midterm elections. “The president is going out there with a lot of public and congressional backing from both parties.”
The segment also included a report from Al Jazeera’s Melissa Chan, who noted that although the trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is not officially on the president’s agenda, it’s likely to be a major talking point throughout his trip. The TPP a deal between the U.S. and 11 Asian countries which addresses tariff issues, copyrights, labor standards, and environmental measures. Critics in the U.S. worry that it could give rise to the tyranny of multi-national corporations.
China was intentionally excluded from the TPP, but the U.S. insists it would welcome Beijing if it wanted to join. Chan says Obama’s trip isn’t likely to solve any big problems, but hopes to start the process of rebuilding US-Asia relations that many Asians feel Washington has neglected.
Gresser believes the Senate will also be supportive of the TPP. “In general, there’s pretty good bi-partisan support for the president on this. If he brings home a deal that opens markets, preserves the global internet, raises labor standards, I think it will be well-received.”
Stone Fish adds that the biggest challenge for the TPP is public awareness. He says not many people know what the TPP is and what it means for the average American. He says Beijing is also investing in its new Silk Road Agreement. “On Saturday, Beijing offered $40 billion to start a fund that would help build infrastructure between China and Southeast and Central Asia.”
Al Jazeera’s Adrian Brown also joined the discussion by satellite from Beijing, saying that China sees itself at the center of the summit’s regional economic integration. “China also wants to see the creation of a vast investment bank that analysts say could rival the Asian Development Bank and even the International Monetary Fund.” The U.S., Japan, South Korea, and Australia, however, are reluctant to sign onto the idea because of concerns about governance and accountability issues. 
Gresser says there are two major incentives for the U.S. to pursue trade deals with Asia. “If we can export more, that will accelerate our ability to grow the economy and put more people back to work.” He adds that it’s also important for the US to be able to shape the economy in Asia in a way that will benefit the United States.

Americans are set to vote in midterm elections on Tuesday. Although the election offers the possibility of significant power shifts in Congress and in statehouses across the country those decisions are likely to be made by only a minority of eligible voters. In fact, turnout in US elections is consistently the lowest in the industrialized world.
The Pew Research Center says that only 37 percent of Americans voted in the 2010 midterms, and analysts expect the number to be around the same this. Many of the people who don’t vote are poor and less educated.
Thirty-four percent of non-voters are under the age of 30; and nearly half of non-voters areminorities, including Latinos and African-Americans. Many people from low-income backgrounds don’t have the means get to polling stations to cast their ballots, or cannot afford to take time off from work to do so.
The Census Bureau says most people who don’t vote say they don’t have the time, while others aren’t interested or don’t like the candidates.
During Al Jazeera America’s Sunday night segment “The Week Ahead,” Thomas Drayton posed the question of who actually votes to Fredrick Harris, Director of African-American Politics and Society at Columbia University; and to John Hudak, a fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, and Managing Editor of the FixGov blog, who joined the conversation from Washington, DC.
“There are huge groups of people in the United States who end up not voting particularly during midterm elections, but those people tend to come out during presidential elections,” says Hudak. “I think it goes back to how connected people are to the election, and whether the elections that they happen to be voting in are competitive.”
Hudak explains that older, white Americans who tend to be Republican, have higher voter turnout partly due to tradition, and partly because they are better able to make it to the polls, and are often more reached out to by campaigns. Mobilization efforts aimed at younger voters and minorities are generally less successful during midterm elections.
It tends to be a different scenario when there are issues pushing people to organize voter registration drives, or create more interest in the democratic process.  In Ferguson, Missouri, where black teenager Michael Brown was shot and killed by a white police officer in August, Reverend Al Sharpton criticized the 12 percent turnout in the last local election, calling it “an insult to your children.” He’s encouraged local activists to use Brown’s death to get people more politically involved.

Harris says that “younger voters, like some other voters, have to feel like they have a stake in the outcome of the election.” He explains that home owners are more likely to vote than people who rent, because they feel like they have a much higher stake in their communities. “When young voters feel that there is a hot, burning issue or they think they can make a difference in an election, like they did in the 2008 presidential election, then they will come out to vote.”