this is simply becoming a rightwing talking point to kill the deal.

a whole lot can happen in 10 years and perhaps all nuclear weapons will go away by then (probably not, but one can hope).

You could be right.

We've got ten years to come up with a follow-up plan. And who knows how many of Iran's hard-liners will die during that time?

and Republicans and the war monger ghosts of Iraq.

There is movement towards a ban on nuclear weapons worldwide.
The NPT even calls for this.
Are you in favor of that? I am.

There is also separate movement for a nuclear-free Middle East.
That would be a big step in the right direction.

Obama has laid one giant foundation stone to make a nuclear-free ME inevitable, perhaps if Israel opted for a guarantee of an American nuclear umbrella until America also gets rid of them.

The key now I think to moving forward is getting Israel to admit it has nuclear weapons, and agree to it's own inspections and in conjunction with Iran compliance on the fresh agreement, destroying those nuclear weapons.

If the Dixie Swastika can come down, anything is possible in America.

With the joke of the inspections timetable allowed, Tracking iran's work will be just like whack-a-mole.

The fact is they will have 24/7 inspection of all known parts of the nuclear program - from uranium mines to the final stage. On new suspected sites, they will have a time frame - the 24 days max - before which they can examine the expected site.

So, if they wanted to cheat, it is not all that simple - they need to covertly create an entire secret supply path.

Compare that to where we are otherwise. If the US or Iran ruins the deal, we are back to where we were when your hero went to the UN with a cartoon explaining Iran was 2 or 3 months from a nuclear weapon. We would have NO inspectors anywhere. Not to mention, if it is the US and Israel that screw up the deal, there will likely be no further negotiations (no "better" deal) and most international sanctions will end. Please tell me how this is better -- especially as the situation if the deal fails is that the sanctions snap back in
if Iran is found to have cheated -- than giving peace a chance.

They've ignored almost every agreement they've ever entered into.
Why is there a 24 day window allowed when a site is suspected of violating the terms? Why cant that site be inspected immediately?
Why are inspections of military sites STILL not allowed? And if you think they are, then why would Irans leaders be saying publicly that they are not? Because without them, this is a weak deal. Why has Sec Kerry already said just yesterday that the latest statements out of Iran are "troubling"? And if sanctions are lifted instantly by this deal, how will a "snapback" clause actually be implemented if businesses are already back in country? This deal doesnt require them to actually dismantle any part of their nuclear program, like Libya had to do. Why not?
They STILL say they never had a nuke program, do you believe them?
And why is it that any opposition to a deal instantly means that war is the only other option? Sanctions have hurt Iran. Let them hurt a little longer till they make some substantial agreement.

There are inspections of every known nuclear site and every point in the supply chain. If a military site has a known nuclear facility, that part would be under 24/7 inspection.

As to Secretary Kerry's comment, it is taken out of context -- as the right ALWAYS does. Here's a link to the full interview done for a Sunni gulf state network - http://english.alarabiya.net/en/media/inside-the-newsroom/2015/07/21/Full-transcript-of-Al-Arabiya-interview-with-Secretary-of-State-John-Kerry.html Kerry is still 100% behind the deal.

The deal does require them to roll back parts of their program. The underground facility, Fodor, will cease being used on anything that could be related to a nuclear bomb. The vast proportion of their enriched uranium will be sent out of Iran. In addition, there are many many other things that change the break out from 2 months to one year.

Why not leave the sanctions in and get a more substantial deal -- because that is a fantasy. In fact, while they were under sanctions for the Bush years and first Obama term, the number of centrifuges escalated. Per BiBi himself, it is clear that under sanctions, Iran got much closer to the ability to have a nuclear bomb. That momentum was successfully frozen by the interim agreement - which goes away if the US scuttles the deal. The rest of the world and Iran will not go back to negotiations - and international sanctions will not continue.

Note that Israeli military officials estimated that even a successful attack on their facilities would simply set Iran back 3 or so years - because they have the know how and can and will rebuild.

PLease watch Obama's appearance on Jon Stewart (or his excellent news conference). Stop to think that much of what you may be hearing is from Bibi, AIPAC and the neocons who are solidly against using diplomacy. They have been moving towards a war with Iran for years. Give peace a chance.

But hey, I could be wrong. Usually I'm not, but hopefully this will be one of them. I read the Kerry interview. It doesnt change what he said nor what the Iranians said. THEY are the ones insisting that a lot of what we've been told is in the deal, actually is NOT in the deal.
My opinion has nothing to do with Israels opinion, but my own based on Irans past actions and their current statements. As I said before, not liking this agreement does not mean the only other alternative is war.
Iran gets away with a lot in this just so we can say "we got a deal"
We'll see

You forget tat there were many - even former Republican national security leaders who praised the framework put out in April -- and this deal actually is more advantageous to the west than the framework.

The point of explaining the circumstances of the interview are the perspective that supplies. The countries it is based in are Sunni nations that were not happy with any Iran deal. The remarks of the Ayatollah ARE unacceptable and the way many parsed them is he has to keep his hard liners happy. Kerry was asked about the comments - what should he say? He has to take issue with them and - as he did - say they are disconcerting. Now, for a minute consider the comments you could have read from top US lawmakers or Israeli leaders that have been pretty intemperate about Iran. Should Iran have refused to make a deal because the Chair of teh US Senate Armed Services committee sand "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"?

to the same standard as everybody else who signed the NPT? why create a harsher inspection regime for them? I say the whole sanctions should be lifted, their seized asset returned up until there is evidence they are violating the original NPT agreement signed. The so called agreement is too harsh in my book.

Frankly, they got off easy.

I want to read how they violated the original NPT agreement they signed. Thanks in advance.

"If Iran is coming to say, "We're willing to abide by the non-proliferation treaty," that would be very welcome news. I have a feeling that's not what they're coming to do. I think they're coming to try to divert attention and confuse the issue. And there is no confusion. They have violated the terms of the NPT, they have been held under all kinds of restrictions and obligations that they have not complied with by the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, by the U.N. Security Council. So we're not going to permit Iran to try to change the, the story from their failure to comply and in any way upset the efforts we are in the midst of, which is to get the international community to adopt a strong Security Council resolution that further isolates them and imposes consequences for their behavior."

From an appearance on Meet the Press years ago
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36879498/ns/meet_the_press#.Va_OI2RViko

That comment was from 2010 and was part of her effort to get more sanctions in place.

Not whether or not she agrees with this agreement

We really don't know what will happen. Statements about this will happen, that will happen are not credible if they don't acknowledge that. This is true about people championing the deal and about people opposing the deal. It would be more credible for people to say what they expect and why but to also leave open the possibility that they will be surprised.

These articles all have references to legitimate sources.
Note that the NPT requires members to comply with the IAEA and UNSCC.

P5 means the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, US, Uk, France, Russia and China. +1 means Germany.

Russia and China both have good reasons to get the sanctions off Iran thus I do NOT see them agreeing this this position. P5+1 is a group that does NOT decide by Majority rule, but by consensus, and given Russia's and China's position, there can be no consensus on this issue.

This is thus either a US or US and UK talking point, not something real, given the cite is from the "Globe and Mail" it sounds like a US and UK talking point.

Note that it does not itself reimpose sanctions, nor has anyone said that everyone will agree to it in 10 years. Whether or not it is even an issue with anyone 10 years from now can't be predicted.

Even if any one of the Six members and reimpose the sanctions, NONE of them will do so without at least talking to the others, and that means talking to Russia and China and their objections.

On top of this you have Germany, will the German vote to reimpose sanctions, if they main fuel supplier, the Russians say NO? The talk is any one of the six can reimpose the sanctions but that is NOT how the Security Council works, the Security Council gives each member a veto, thus unless this is OUTSIDE THE UN TREATY, Russia and China still retain their veto.