Here's an interesting answer to the nagging question of "How /why would the US promote peace with Iran over the objections of Israel?"
Clearly the 'logic' of peace, the 'morality' of peace has held no sway over US foreign policy for decades. And going against Israel is very costly for anyone in US government (or anyone in public eye) so the gain isn't clear.
I've assumed the public fighting between Netanyahu and Obama was likely theater to tamp down the growing voices saying that Israel controls US foreign policy in the Middle East, but making peace would not fit that theory, as really lifting the sanctions on Iran goes beyond show. But what if this play is only in its second act? Moon of Alabama as always has a jaundiced and usually accurate take on world politics, suggesting the end game is that since the pundits are calling this "either a deal or war", when the deal falls apart, war can then be started.
(though actual hot war is still an impossibility even for the mighty Empire, but at least USreal can gain the propaganda capital needed to tighten the screws even further.) The game in the ME is to have Israel dominate in a community of broken or vassal states, this freight train isn't changing course as far as I can see, so wtf explains rapprochement with Iran?
"Thoughts On That Maybe-Deal About Iran's Nuclear Achievements"
"Some preliminary deal has been agreed upon in Geneva that will restrict Iran's civil nuclear research and production program in exchange for lifting sanctions.
The deal is unfinished. The devil is in the details and those have yet to be agreed upon. The deal will fail when on June 30 those agreements will turn out to be unachievable.
There are many distortions and lies in the "western" reporting on the issue. Facts that are left out include:
The whole crisis over a "nuclear Iran" is manufactured based on lies from Israeli and U.S. intelligence services. The target of the U.S. and Israeli operations was never a "nuclear Iran" but an Iranian Islamic Republic that insists on independent internal and foreign policies.
Iranian leaders have declared that any weapons of mass destruction contradict the philosophical and religious base of the Islamic State of Iran. They have insisted on this and did not retaliate even when their cities came under chemical attacks during the Iraq-Iran war.
All U.S. intelligence services agree that Iran does not have any military nuclear program. There is nothing to fear from a pure civil nuclear program in Iran.
All sanctions on Iran are illegal in the very first place. They have no basis in facts or law.
There is now a very disturbing tendency in U.S. commentary, following Obama's lead, to say that the (unfinished) deal should be taken because it the only alternative is war.
Who would start and wage such a war?
On what legal basis?
For what purpose given that Iran clearly has no military nuclear program?
Such stupid alternative "deal or war" as argument for a deal is dangerous because the deal can still fail and the hawks will then argue that "even the lubral commentators said 'deal or war' so now it must be war."
Indeed, given Obama's very aggressive foreign policy thus far I can not exclude that war on Iran is his real aim and only hidden behind very public but sham negotiations to make a public case for it."