could go either way.

Unfortunately, it looks like it isn't going to happen. Even if they got a good deal, unfortunately, I think Congress could really throw a wrench in the process

The relief from sanctions should be proportionate with scale back of the nuclear program. Why should they scale it back completely and then beg for relief from sanctions?

If they do 10%, sanctions should be lifted 10% and so on without any delay.

What the US is demanding is "give me your car keys, let me drive it around for a year or so and then I'll pay you for it."

They make a deal, then blessed Hillary and her minions won't be able to saber-rattle for the election.

Fabius of France may have had the best statement today - he said the last 100 meters of a marathon are always the hardest. Though I think the main need of an agreement is to avoid a war by taking away that excuse.

If they get a deal, I hope that the left will have as much passion towards pushing their legislators to support it as they did arguing against the Iraq war. It is likely that this could actually avoid a war. Even the IWR likely made no difference to whether we went to war -- so this may be more important.

...your words, karynnj.
Exactly right. So many are not paying attention to the importance of Kerry's diplomatic efforts. He's trying to avoid a WAR. A war that likely involves countries with nuclear capability.This is CRITICALLY important.
I saw someone on Twitter yesterday that actually questioned the newsworthiness of reporting President Obama's teleconference with the US negotiating team, saying that businesses use that technology all the time so why is this 'news'! He totally missed the point. The newsworthiness was not in the technology...it was with the seriousness of diplomatic work to prevent a future nuclear war. Such an effort...Kerry's effort.. should be applauded!

the time and work. This is what it means to exhaust diplomacy.

I am more hopeful than most on the board -- just because ultimately each side has a deep loss of something they really want if it fails. The US is faced with the prospect of Iran getting a nuclear bomb - which they and even more Israel view as a major threat. Though it is hard to see how this is worse than Pakistan having one -- as they do. If the negotiations end, the interim agreement ends - along with all monitoring and all reduction in their stockpiles. On Iran's side, if it ends, the sanctions stay in place.

I've noticed that Kerry's and Zarif's comments tend to mirror each other. In Iran, there are hardliners demanding more ... just as there are people in Congress demanding more than ever promised. I would wonder if Obama's comments are intended to do two things - reinforce his oft stated position that we will walk away from a bad deal and to balance the Iranian demands. I suspect the goal is to make it clear to Iran that he and the US need this less than they do. In fact, it will take political capital to get this through Congress and I don't think that it will help him politically in the US, even though the majority of Americans want a deal. Note there is no down side in Obama saying the odds are 50/50, while there is a down side to saying that he knows there will be a deal.

Someone else spoke of how Iran did not work with Carter. However, the politics are different this time. Obama is more open to this than any Presidential hopeful other than Kerry. If it fails, I doubt they can get a better deal with Clinton or any Republican -- and they have to know this. If they want the nuclear related sanctions to end and the first baby steps of rejoining the world, they need a deal.

...you. I am still hopeful for two reasons. One, something I read about 'diplospeak' and how what is said often has meaning that negotiators understand differently than we laypersons. That 'mirroring' could be part if it. Second, I do think both sides must be aware of US politics. Any future President will not put in an equal effort on this cause, especially not a Republican. If Iran wants a deal, now is the time.

The points he made was that they thought it worthwhile to continue, but that it was not open ended. His point was that they were NOT at the point of deciding that they could not get an agreement - that they all have been working hard to getting. Here is the link to the State,gov text and video - the whole thing. http://www.state.gov/ (text - http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/07/244758.htm )

While weariness - and commitment - are obvious, I don't see frustration. I suspect that the frustration is that of the reporter, who has had to write nearly the same thing every day for the last few weeks.

a major accomplishment for the administration.

Ask Jimmy Carter about it. The plane with our hostages was made to wait until 52 minutes into the Reagan administration before being allowed to take off. That's real spite. And a number of the "students" that took our embassy then are high level members of the Iranian Government that we're dealing with now.

Just take an item off the table that was previously agreed upon, and let them know that tomorrow another concession will disappear as well. They'll understand the need to expedite the decision.

1) Doing so keeps them isolated, with funds frozen and sanctions in place.
2) Unlike 1980 with Republican promises -- they have to know that Obama is far more likely to make a deal than either HRC or a Republican. (To complicate things further, it will be a year and several months before they would even know who they could deal with.)

Any successful agreement is going to be very difficult for some in Iran to take. The signers of the agreement could be out on their butts, and replaced by even harder liners if it is perceived as caving. Maybe that's what their supreme leader wants -- to clean house. We just don't know.

I guess that's why there are spies and verification regimes -- because not knowing sucks.

If the US doesn't look like it made an honest diplomatic effort, the rest of the world will drop sanctions against Iran. Then it doesn't matter what the US says or does -because the rest of the world will start trading with Iran. I mean the US could still drop "bunkerbuster" bombs and set Iranian nuclear production back temporarily - but that will leave us and our ally Israel isolated. This is a game of brinkmanship. Kerry is playing his part and so is Iran. China's already bought Iranian oil futures so you can forget US security council sanctions on Iran -veto power at its finest (sarcasm symbol). This is like a daytime soap playing out, except for the script is NOT what is really happening.
Stonecarver