There’s no agreement yet. Yes, a bad agreement would be bad. A good agreement would be good. Tall people are tall.
And no, I don’t accept your assertions about the Democratic party’s “brand”.
You’ve failed to show that this is the case.
You’ve also failed to show that this is the case.
Let’s see:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/12/us-iran-nuclear-kerry-idUSKBN0N30QT20150412
Kerry has said the sanctions would be suspended in phases.
…
Kerry added that Russia, not a U.S. ally, had issued a statement saying that the facts about the deal as expressed by the United States were “reliable and accurate information.”
combined with
“Russia lifts ban on S-300 missile system delivery to Iran”
you may not see this as dishonest spin from Kerry. But anyone with an ounce of objectivity would.
This does not logically follow.
Looking from the outside of the american politics … I think it is clear that it is not Terr or adaher who are very good in being able to speak about ‘objectivity’ whatever the opinion one has about the Iran deal. Really very entertaining to see their statements about also the rest of world. It is an interesting world view…
Who is this magical “we” you reference? When Russia and China decide that the status quo is untenable and drop sanctions, what next? China buys their oil (the only thing they really have to sell) and sells them technology. They also buy Russian technology with the Chinese money. What then?
Oh I forgot. Your plan is that Jack Ryan and John Clark go over there and kick some ass by assassinating some scientists and uploading a computer virus. The Iranians miraculously embrace True Democracy™, abandon their nuclear goals, convert to Zen Buddhism, and become our closest ally in the ME. Hell, we might even offer them a spot in NATO! USA! USA! USA!
This is starting to sound an awful lot like “Repeal and Replace”. Repeal now and replace with some unspecified plan at some unspecified future date. Trust us!
This is a strange fantasy land analysis where the USA is making all the decisions it seems. I think it must be the way the cuban policy must have been maintained.
Of course excluding the USA and the Israel, the Russians and the Chinese can make and are making their own decisions, and are too big to sanction to death. And in the EU there is great fatigue on this front and dislike of the idea of a faction in the Israel (not even we must be careful, the Israel, but a faction, but one that gets invited by a certain american political party) dictating the collapse of an agreement that parties other than these two factions think are reasonable.
So as the Russian decisions and the chinese noises suggest, the rejectionism being advanced is more of a chest-beating self-isolating fashion than a real analysis in a truly objective fashion.
Still I recall the sweeping american election predictions made so the analysis is amusing in that way.
Let’s hear some more about about the other powers involved, apart from the U.S.
China: Committed to drastically increase trade with Iran, from $39 billion in 2013 to a whopping $200 billion by 2025.
Russia: Apparently happy about selling weapons to Iran. Don’t know about larger trends, but as far as I know they’re not in any direct geopolitical confrontation with Iran, and would presumably not mind increased trade and better relations?
Germany: Described on the P5+1’s Wikipedia page as “the key trading partner of Iran.” I’m guessing that the Germans, too, would like to increase trade even further, both now and post-Merkel?
The U.K.: Don’t know about Anglo-Iranian trade. The country restored diplomatic relations with Iran in February of 2014, but would presumably follow the American lead either way, détente or no détente, sanctions or no sanctions, Cameron or no Cameron. Or not, I really don’t know.
France: No clue there, to be honest.
Help anyone? Would love to know some more.
In the GOP these days, doing nothing is considered to be a plan.
We are doing things. Lots of things. Obama wants to STOP doing those things.
In any case, surprising that there has been no mention of the fact that a bill to prevent the President from lifting sanctions on his own is likely to pass with such overwhelming support that the President will now sign the bill. I’m not sure why Congress has to pass laws reminding the President that he has to follow the law, but I guess we live in that world now.
Because they are more invested in making an asinine statement to placate imbeciles who vote, than to the pursuit of peace.
There’s a pursuit of peace going on? I wasn’t aware that Iran’s support for attacks on US targets by militant proxies was going to be addressed in these talks.
This is strictly a negotiation over managing Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power in about 10 years.
I understand that you have to scramble, because your stance is so utterly bereft of grist, but that’s a fairly silly thing to say. These talks are to keep the morons on the right (both here and in Israel) from dropping bombs to reach the goal of Iran not having nukes. Those morons want to scuttle the talks because to a moron, bombs and dead Iranians are vastly superior to diplomacy and peace.
You really need things spelled out for your in such a remedial manner?
No, it’s about stopping it. You seem to think that an agreement has to last forever to have any meaning. No, it needs to position the parties in the right stance for the next step.
What you are referring to is still not peace, it’s preventing the outbreak of conventional war. And we only achieve the limited goal of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power if the agreement contains what the administration says it contains.
So I’ll ask again, do you think the administration should walk away if the Iranians stick to their insistence on immediate lifting of sanctions and no inspections?
Do you even listen to yourself? I mean, seriously?
Adaher: It’s not peace! It’s preventing conventional war!
That should be your sig.
Since it’s not finalized, it contains nothing so far. Wait till the ink on the page before you scoff ignorantly.
I think the administration should negotiate the best deal possible to achieve the stated goals. I think that Iran should also do the same.
Hell, yes. Those are deal-killers.
Talks and treaty negotiations aren’t always successful. Sometimes, one side or the other asks for too much, and the other side has to say no.
If this happens, I’d be proud of those on the right wing who praise Obama for doing the right thing, and for pulling out of talks that have gone badly.
Of course, we all know that they’ll really castigate him for “folding.”
MOre accurately, your priority seems to be stopping Iran from getting bombed. Stopping us from getting bombed, lower priority apparently.
You’re an SDMB poster, not a politician, nor do you work for a politician. There’s no need for a political answer. I’m sure you have an idea of what is an acceptable deal and what isn’t. This isn’t rocket science. The framework that the administration released may not be acceptable to a lot of people, but it is at least plausible. The framework that Iran released does not even meet the plausible threshold. If we can’t agree on at least that…
You definitely should think long and hard before you say something like that. And then not do it.
So you’re suggesting I want the US to get nuked? I love this country, if you think I want my countrymen killed, I’ll kindly suggest you’re mistaken.
I don’t want us to bomb Iran unnecessarily. That’s the key. If diplomacy can fix the problem, then let it. But on the right, the hatred of Obama is so intense, that they want to scuttle the talks to slake their bloodlust. It’s sickening. And the country I love shouldn’t get its hands any dirtier at the behest of the violent imbeciles that call the shots in the GOP primaries.
This is a true thing. I have however done project work for politicians.
Both sides are spinning. It’s part of the negotiation. And both sides have idiots that want to end the talks. On the US it’s so the neocons can see Muslim blood in the streets. On their side, it’s so their narrative is justified.
If no one has to die, I’d prefer that. There is too much death in the world that we can’t do anything about.
That’s fine. But any deal has to plausibly keep Iran from a bomb. Otherwise we’re better off continuing to sabotage their program and kill their scientists, something that we can do without Russia and China. And our sanctions mean something even if they are unilateral, since we have the economic power to also punish foreign companies that do business with Iran. US states have already taken such action.
Quite the apology. 
If you have Russia, China, you don’t need to trade with the US. And the US can’t punish Russia and China, because we need them.
The world isn’t a simple as the RW media paints it. Sometimes the good guy doesn’t wear a white hat, and sometimes the bad guy doesn’t wear a hat at all.