The officials said Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and other Arab and Persian Gulf countries have been discussing the next steps toward possible strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. The officials said the US passed strong messages to Israel and the Saudis that the Americans control radar capabilities over the skies near Iran and that no strike should be launched without permission from the Obama administration.

It was unclear whether the purported visit to Saudi Arabia by Israeli military and intelligence officials signals any real preparation for a strike or if the trip was meant to keep pressure on the West amid Israeli fears about the current deal with Tehran. The trip came prior to the announcement today of the deal with Western powers that aims to halt key parts of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

At a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem today, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed what he called a “bad” and “dangerous” deal, while affirming that Israel will not allow Iran to go nuclear.

The discussions were kept hidden even from America's closest friends, including its negotiating partners and Israel, until two months ago, and that may explain how the nuclear accord appeared to come together so quickly after years of stalemate and fierce hostility between Iran and the West.

But the secrecy of the talks may also explain some of the tensions between the US and France, which earlier this month balked at a proposed deal, and with Israel, which is furious about the agreement and has angrily denounced the diplomatic outreach to Tehran. President Barack Obama personally authorized the talks as part of his effort - promised in his first inaugural address - to reach out to a country the State Department designates as the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism.

After raising expectations of a deal by first convening on November 8-10, it would have been beyond humiliating to gather again without result. So agreement was struck despite solemn incantations earlier that “no deal is better than a bad deal.”

This interim agreement is badly skewed from America’s perspective. Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its “right” to enrichment in any “final” agreement.

Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a “comprehensive solution” will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program.” This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a “compromise” on Iran’s claimed “right” to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.

Netanyahu believes the six-month deal leaves Iran's military nuclear capabilities largely intact, while giving Iran relief from painful economic sanctions, undermining negotiations on the next stage. At the same time, Israel's strongest piece of leverage, the threat of a military strike on Iran, seems to be out of the question despite Netanyahu's insistence it would remain on the table.

"Today the world became a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world made a significant step in obtaining the most dangerous weapons in the world," Netanyahu told his Cabinet on Sunday, calling the deal a "historic mistake." He said Israel was not bound by the agreement, and reiterated Israel's right to "defend itself by itself," a veiled reference to a possible military strike against Iran.

Yoel Guzansky, who used to monitor the Iranian nuclear program for Israel's National Security Council, said Israel's main card - military action - appears to be out of the question right now. "How can Israel, after the entire international community sat with Iran, shook hands with Iran and signed an agreement, operate independently?" he said. "It will be seen as someone who sabotages 10 years of trying to get Iran to the table and trying to get a deal."

Following a months-long diplomatic campaign warning of the dangers of easing economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for steps to curb its contested nuclear programme, senior cabinet ministers chimed in, with one saying Israel reserved the right to strike Iran on its own.

Netanyahu told his cabinet on Sunday that "what was achieved yesterday in Geneva is not a historic agreement but rather a historic mistake." Speaking later at a ceremony in Jerusalem, he said that the more details emerged on the deal, "the more it becomes clear how bad the deal is for Israel, the region and the world."

"Iran gets billions of dollars in sanction relief without paying an actual price," said Netanyahu. "Iran gets written permission to breach UN Security Council" resolutions. According to Netanyahu, the agreement "rescues Iran from a significant part of the pressure it was under, while giving it international legitimacy to continue its nuclear programme. This is a bad deal."

The nine pieces of bone, which were once kept in a shoe box, were displayed in a bronze case and placed on the side of the altar during a Mass at St Peter's Square led by Pope Francis. The pontiff, who prayed before the fragments at the start of the service, later clutched the case in his arms for several minutes.

Experts disagree on whether the fragments, which were found during excavations under St Peter's Basilica in the years after Pope Pius XI's death in 1939, belong to St Peter. Archaeologists working beneath the building discovered a funerary monument with a casket built in his honour, as well as a Greek engraving which read "Petros eni" or "Peter is here".

However, no pope has ever declared the fragments belong to St Peter. Pope Paul VI came closest, announcing in 1968 that they were "identified in a way we can consider convincing". Margherita Guarducci, the late Italian scholar, said the relics were given to one of the basilica workers, who stored them in a shoe box in a cupboard. They were presented to Pope Paul VI in 1971 but have not been seen in public since.

And after years of negative press, the Catholic Church is basking in the 'Francis Effect' which has been credited with a 20 per cent rise in congregations in Britain, and similar boosts around the world. But who is the PR guru working quietly behind the scenes to help push Pope Francis forward and leading the Church out of one of its darkest spells following a slew of recent scandals?

His name is Greg Burke and he is a senior media advisor to the Vatican. The Vatican, stung by communications blunders and mired in a leaks scandal, hired the American journalist in June 2012 from Fox News to help improve its relations with the media.

He became a member of the controversial Catholic group Opus Dei when he was 18 and is a 'numerary' in the movement, a celibate layman. Opus is greatly in favor in the Vatican these days, particularly as other new religious movements such as the Legion of Christ have lost credibility with their own problems. Founded in 1928, Opus Dei is part of the Catholic Church and has 500 members across Britain.

The stated mission of the organisation - which means 'God's Work' - is to spread the Christian message and help people embrace Catholicism in their everyday work. But it has attracted controversy over its practices including self-flagellation and radical teachings that homosexual sex is a sin. Critics have also accused the organisation of brainwashing and being run like a cult.

Depositors already have to cope with near-zero interest rates, but paying just to leave money in the bank would be highly unusual and unwelcome for companies and households. The warning by bank executives highlights the dangers of one strategy the Fed could use to offset an eventual “tapering” of the $85 billion a month in asset purchases that have fuelled global financial markets for the last year.

Minutes of the Fed’s October meeting published last week showed it was heading towards a taper in the coming months – perhaps as soon as December – but wants to find a different way to add stimulus at the same time. “Most” officials thought a cut in the interest on bank reserves was an option worth considering.

Executives at two of the top five US banks said a cut in the 0.25 per cent rate of interest on the $2.4 trillion in reserves they hold at the Fed would lead them to pass on the cost to depositors. Banks say they may have to charge because taking in deposits is not free: they have to pay premiums of a few basis points to a US government insurance programme.

RBS is said to have acted like a ‘hit squad’ by deliberately causing healthy businesses to go bust for its personal gain. In the worst cases, the bank withdrew lines of credit for previously solvent firms by charging eye-watering fees and charges so it could then seize their assets – typically property – at knockdown prices.

Entrepreneur Lawrence Tomlinson was asked by Business Secretary Vince Cable to look into small business lending. He accuses many of Britain’s banks of ‘heavy-handed profiteering and abhorrent behaviour’. Last night Mr Tomlinson said if it was proved there was ‘systematic and institutional fraud’ at the banks, ‘you should see people going to jail’.

His report reserved its most damning criticism for taxpayer-backed RBS and Lloyds. He said: ‘It is undeniable that some of the banks, RBS and Lloyds in particular, are harming their customers through their decisions and causing their financial downfall.’ The allegation will be a major embarrassment for both lenders and the Government, which owns an 82 per cent stake in RBS and 43 per cent in Lloyds.

Last night Mr Tomlinson, the founding chairman of the LNT Group, which employs more than 2,000 people, told Channel 4 News: ‘We’re really concerned that the businesses aren’t really struggling and are pushed over the edge. And then these extra fees tip them over into administration, and then you’ve got the loss of jobs but end up with RBS owning the property.’

Perpetrators have dubbed the violent practice as the "knockout game," in which young people try to randomly knock out strangers with one punch. Recent attacks in New York, New Haven, Connecticut, Washington DC and suburban Philadelphia have raised concerns across the country.

The violence is not new, though. In 2011, St Louis had a rash of similar incidents, one of which led to the death of a Vietnamese immigrant. Some of the assaults are recorded and posted on social media by the attackers.

The attacks in New York have racial overtones because the suspects are black and the victims have been Jewish. In New Haven, police spokesman David Hartman said police are investigating six incidents in the past month as part of the knockout trend. "I think the fact that this has been labeled a game is sickening," Hartman said. "This is not a game. This is violent."

US President Barack Obama welcomed the deal, saying it included "substantial limitations which will help prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon". Iran agreed to give better access to inspectors and halt some of its work on uranium enrichment. But Iranian negotiators insisted they still had a right to nuclear power.

Tehran denies repeated claims by Western governments that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It insists it must be allowed to enrich uranium to use in power stations. The deal comes just months after Iran elected Hassan Rouhani - regarded as a relative moderate - as its new president, in place of the hardline Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mr Rouhani said the deal would "open up new horizons". After four days of negotiations, representatives of the so-called P5+1 group of nations - the US, the UK, Russia, China, France and Germany - reached an agreement with Iran in the early hours of Sunday.

The specifics of the deal have yet to be released, but negotiators indicated the broad outlines:

• Iran will stop enriching uranium beyond 5%, the level at which it can be used for weapons research, and reduce its stockpile of uranium enriched beyond this point

• Iran will give greater access to inspectors including daily access at Natanz and Fordo nuclear sites

• In return, there will be no new nuclear-related sanctions for six months

• Iran will also receive sanctions relief worth about $7 billion (£4.3 billion) on sectors including precious metals

US Secretary of State John Kerry said the agreement would make the region safer for its allies, including Israel. But the Israeli government criticised the deal and said Israel did not feel bound by it.

"We awoke this morning to a new reality. A reality in which a bad deal was signed with Iran. A very bad deal," Bennett stated on his Facebook page. "This bad deal gives Iran exactly what it wanted: a significant easing of the sanctions while retaining the most significant parts of its nuclear program." Bennett emphasized the long-term implications of the deal, stating that "if a nuclear suitcase blows up five years from now in New York or Madrid, it will be because of the deal that was signed this morning."

The remarks provide a telling rebuttal to claims by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, an alleged moderate, that "Israel is only concerned about its own interests, and it does not think about the interests of the world." Bennett also vowed that Israel will not take the news lightly. "There is still a long campaign ahead of us," he continued. "We will continue to act in every possible way."

"It is important that the world knows: Israel will not be committed to a deal that endangers its very existence," Bennett concluded. Those comments come soon after the Jewish Home party head made similar statements in an interview with Army Radio, declaring that Israel is not bound by the deal.

"Israel is not engaged by the Geneva accord," he said, in a statement to Army Radio. "Iran is threatening Israel and Israel has the right to defend itself."

Along with the creation of the zone in the East China Sea, the defence ministry released a set of aircraft identification rules that must be followed by all planes entering the area, under penalty of intervention by the military.

Aircraft are expected to provide their flight plan, clearly mark their nationality, and maintain two-way radio communication allowing them to "respond in a timely and accurate manner to the identification inquiries" from Chinese authorities. "China's armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions," according to the ministry. The zone became operational as of 10:00 am Saturday.

Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera said in late October that the repeated incursions were a threat to peace and fell in a "grey zone (between) peacetime and an emergency situation". A few days earlier, the Chinese defence minister warned Japan that any bid to shoot down its drones would constitute "an act of war".

A 3,000-seat outdoor theatre in a park in downtown Tokyo, near the parliament, was not enough to contain everyone who came on Thursday to denounce government plans to considerably broaden the definition of classified information. According to organizers’ estimates, about 10,000 people crowded shoulder-to-shoulder in the aisles of the theater and outside of it, holding banners that read: “Don't take away our freedom.”

The adoption of the law, proposed by the government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, would enable the authorities to put civil servants responsible for information leaks behind bars for up to 10 years. This would seriously threaten the freedom of the press, as Japanese media would face serious problems gathering information on burning issues, because state employees would be reluctant to share information for fear of prosecution.

That’s why a group of Japanese journalists gathered at the Nagatacho District, close to the country’s parliament, to protest the proposed bill. Currently, long prison terms for whistleblowers only apply to those Japanese citizens who leak classified data that came from the US military.

“The definition of what will be designated as secrets is not clear, and bureaucrats will make secrets extremely arbitrarily,” TV journalist Soichiro Tahara told Japan Daily Press. Protesting journalists have submitted a petition to the Cabinet Office, calling for the bill to be scrapped.

The White House website posted a memo stating the following: My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Has he kept that promise? Journalists don’t think so.

Bob Schieffer, CBS News anchor and chief Washington correspondent, told The Washington Post:

"Whenever I’m asked what is the most manipulative and secretive administration I’ve covered, I always say it’s the one in office now. Every administration learns from the previous administration. They become more secretive and put tighter clamps on information. This administration exercises more control than George W Bush’s did, and his before that."

Obama’s White House is arguably the LEAST transparent administration in recent years. CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson posted a series of Tweets that blasted the Obama administration for restricting the access of photojournalists at certain presidential events, “while releasing government photos and videos of the same events”.

This administration supplies their own propaganda photos and videos; why would they want journalists coming in there and interfering? The White House Correspondents Association and 38 news organizations sent a letter to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to complain and ask for more access. The complaint was also endorsed by the White House News Photographers Association.