But months ago when this first started I said Iran would never agree to whats needed
The only way there would be a deal would be if the US just gives up on everything.

Or the April framework. Not to mention that not one of these people know what the agreement -if there is one - will be. Your eagerness to have this fail is interesting.

And Iran is NOT going to let us or anyone else inspect all the sites that need inspecting. For the president, Kerry, or anyone else to think Iran can be trusted is foolish. They've done nothing so far to show that they CAN be trusted

Note also that before both of the two mentioned agreements, there was hard talk in public by Iran. They, not the powers moved the most.

You can trust, the liar Netanyahu and the Washington Institute with all the neo cons on their list or you could at least wait to see if there is an agreement and what it's provisions are.

I am not surprised to see all this flack out at this point. Our foreign policy was long controlled by these guys and Obama has made a change.

Note that in April, Netanyahu said he would even be against the outlined deal even if it was strong enough to keep Iran from getting a weapon for 10 years. He is insisting that an agreement deal with EVERY issue with Iran.

When the Iranian parliament join in a chorus of "death to america", i think i know where their intentions are headed.
Go ahead, sign a stupid and worthless deal. Then Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc will ALL end up with a nuke. With that lineup & Iran its only a short matter of time before it happens

It seems that he and Kerry have an excellent working relationship and they are working together -- along with their other counterparts. The fact is that an agreement will ONLY exist if the entire p5 agree -- that includes France.

There is TONS of disinformation out on this. It is clearly something that Israel and the Sunni nations are fighting --- even though Israel has spoken of needing to prevent Iran from getting a bomb for a decade. What this is showing is that their SPOKEN position is not their REAL position.

How do you explain that nuclear scientist, former MIT professor Secretary Moniz is a key player and he is comfortable will the deal as it has been developing. I don't hear him saying it is "stupid" or "worthless". I trust him, Kerry and Obama more than a random person on an internet board who likely has read too much put out by Bibi and friends.

Its not a matter of trusting them, its a matter of NOT trusting Iran,who has never shown any evidence of being trustworthy in the past. The fact is, the Mullahs are who really run the country. Just because they're not involved in negotiations means absolutely nothing. THEY run the country. The people of Iran have very little say in the matter either.
Fabius says things are STILL not clear. And the 30th is 4 days away.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/06/21/iran-nuclear-fabius-idINKBN0P10S620150621
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/27/laurent-fabius-france-no-nuclear-deal-iran-refuses-inspections-military-sites

If total inspections are not allowed, any agreement is worthless. And whats with the 10 yr term anyway? So its OK for them to have a bomb in 10 yrs?

Its all Bush's fault in the end. If not for the Iraq invasion, Saddam wouldve probably already attacked iran and destroyed their facilites!!

in Iran have earned your trust in them. If you think anyone who is against an agreement that doesn't allow any inspections on Iran is not reasonable, perhaps the problem isn't with them.

However, the timing of the letter and persons involved is highly indicative of an attempt to sabotage any Iran deal by forcing it to be so intrusive that Iran would rather have sanctions. Now ask yourself, whose goal is to sabotage a deal with Iran?

the blame if there is no agreement on Israel (to the surprise of absolutely nobody) when it's the mullah's in Iran who are clearly the ones against the agreement by demanding there be no inspections.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/middleeast/iran-military-inspections/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-legislation-seeks-to-bar-inspections-of-military-sites-under-a-nuclear-deal-1434928693

Plenty more links saying the exact same things.

and they could simply be staking out a bargaining position.

Even a nuclear Iran doesn't threaten Israel. It is a neocon fantasy to see Iranians as some backwoods, ignorant people when they come from a civilization as old as Israel's and the populace consists of highly educated people.

What a nuclear Iran does threaten is a perpetual land grab by Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians.

Israel can have peace tomorrow by surrendering all occupied lands and moving to pre-1967 borders. The only reason they won't do it is because they want to grab the land in perpetuity.

Thank you for proving my point so well. I need say nothing more.

Hamas et al want NO Israel. Its not on their maps. They dont refer to them as a country. they have NEVER said they have a right to exist.What part of all that dont you understand?

The Palestinians can have peace tomorrow if they stop attacking Israel.

if that means Iran is willing to use those nukes to get Israel to withdraw from land, that might not be a good thing.

As long as Israel is the only country in the ME with nukes, the opposition is rendered meek. If Iran gets nukes, the palestinians will be emboldened to create a stronger resistance which may be uncrushable unless Israel uses extreme Nazi tactics.

there are other ways to embolden palestinians than iranian nukes. i don't think there are many mainstream voices (Dem party or otherwise) saying that there are positives to iran getting nukes - the Obama administration's whole position in the negotiations is that it is a negative or iran to get nukes, hence the need for a deal that prevents it.

without negotiations. As Secretary Kerry has said repeatedly - this is not about "trust" - there will be inspections. One person who worked on what they should be is Secretary Moniz - who is an expert on nuclear energy, having previously taught that at MIT.

Then again -- believe Bibi, who made no sense when he tried to speak of the process at the UN with his silly cartoon. Not to mention, he has lied so many times that he has no credibility on anything.

Me, I don't trust the mullahs and I don't trust the neocons and I don't trust Likud, which manages to move further to right on a regular basis.

with the poster that's accusing anyone not supporting this agreement is being paid by bibi. That's another poster here. I've posted several times that without inspections, there will be no agreement.

what the agreement will be are allied with Bibi, the neocons or both ------ and they are having a lot of success getting that view in the media.

AGREE with bibi, they are also being PAID by bibi. Because that's what the poster was saying. THAT point was that nobody could possibly agree that Iran is not to be trusted, EVERYONE thinks they can except for bibi and those being paid by him. For the record, I have't gotten a dime for not trusting the mullahs in iran.

Own reasons for wanting this derailed.

responding to that started this sub thread said EXACTLY that.

except for the shape of their beards and material of their head coverings.

United against a nuclear Iran? The organization that sponsored it is neoconservative.

Dennis Ross was always extremely influenced by Israel. Hadley was a Bush neo con. Then look at what they are calling a "good" deal - eliminating all infrastructure of Iran's enrichment? This sounds like Netanyahu ' s list and he even said that a deal would be bad if it actually kept Iran from getting a weapon for 10 years. A Petraeus, who should be in jail and who is not a diplomat?

What is really happening is that every Israel first or neoconservative is out with "concerns". What it means is they fear thete will be a deal.

Consider three things.
1. There is no deal yet thus they do not even know what is in the deal. Remember that honest people even admitted the April agreement exceeded their expectations.

2. Many neoconservatives don't really want a deal.

3. For Israel, the issue may in reality be they want Iran held down more than they want elimination of the threat of a bomb.