Iranian president says nuclear deal is start of new relationship with world

Iran’s president said on Friday that a framework for a nuclear deal was just the first step toward building a new relationship with the world, after his countrymen greeted the announcement of the accord with celebrations in the streets.

Don't tell Netanyahu and the Republicans that. They believe it is the work of the devil, working through Obama and Kerry.

Don't tell Netanyahu and the Republicans that. They believe it is the work of the devil, working through Obama and Kerry.

No, just going by facts and history and that history when looking back over 36 years with Iran was NEVER good and now all of a sudden, they the Mullahs that rule that country changed just like that? When last week the Ayatollah said "death to America" and a few weeks before that, the Iranian Navy blew up a mock US Aircraft carrier. Hmmm...maybe that's why, people are a more than skeptical. Even you have many on the left including far left poster boy Howard Dean that thinks Obama should have walked away from this deal. But Obama will be suckered in and stay no matter what and a side note, Obama won't deal with Putin about the Ukraine because he needs his help in dealing with the Iranians. Everyone knows this guy is weak and pinned him in a corner, this is more than embarrassing! He can't push the Iranians too much for circling our Sunni allies that surround Lebanon, Syria and Iraq and Yemen because he needs them in someway to agree to a deal-ANY deal. So now you have Putin and the Mullahs pushing and demanding and squeezing Obama and Kerry like a lemon to get the deal THEY want which can help them attain their interests in the region and ****anyone else, ally or not.

More than 58% of Americans oppose this deal. 59% of Dems support the president, 86% of Republicans oppose the deal, 66% of independents oppose the deal. 83% of the public feel, we shouldn't trust Iran and 76% of the public thinks this so called deal should be brought to congress

Obama is going in on a hope and prayer. He could care less what the American people think, he only cares about what the world thinks and how his legacy will turn out.

Then let us welcome Iran as our new friend! This is a good move! We now have the potential for a better future.

However, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has denied any deal has been reached.

looking back over 36 years with Iran was NEVER good

Specific examples please.

When last week the Ayatollah said "death to America" and a few weeks before that, the Iranian Navy blew up a mock US Aircraft carrier.

And you don't think that GOP members criticizing Iran isn't the other side of the coin?

Obama is going in on a hope and prayer. He could care less what the American people think, he only cares about what the world thinks and how his legacy will turn out.

Logic failure. If he didn't care about what the people think, he wouldn't be care about his legacy (which is how people will think of him). If he cares about his legacy, then he cares what people think. So which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Specific examples please.

My pleasure!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/iran-terrorism-timeline/index.html

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/why-iran-cant-be-trusted/448206.html

One of the more common objections is that other countries have nuclear weapons, so why shouldn’t Iran be permitted the same right? And didn’t the world survive the Cold War nuclear era?

The difference, of course, is that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the United States were sufficiently rational actors to understand that a nuclear strike by one side would mean the annihilation of both sides. That prevented the use of nuclear weapons.

But is Iran, driven by Shiite theology that is little understood outside, a rational actor? Can it be counted on not to use nuclear weapons, for example, against Israel, whose destruction it has called for, or neighboring Sunni countries? Could it be trusted not to share its weapons with allies like Venezuela or terrorist groups as Hamas or Hezbollah?

The answer is clear. Iran cannot be trusted. Its bellicose, apocalyptic rhetoric, matched by its destabilizing actions in the region and far beyond, explains why.

And this is from the Moscow Times, not even close to a conservative publication.

Hope that helps, Strange.

And you don't think that GOP members criticizing Iran isn't the other side of the coin?

The difference is, the GOP is NOT trying to destroy Iran, they want a halt to its nuclear enrichment program and wants the country and their crazy Mullahs to stop threatening its neighbors and lastly the US with saber rattling rhetoric. Remember, there is a middle YOU DON'T NEED TO GO TO WAR in order to squeeze Iran. You just pile on more sanctions as much and as many as you can. That is the overall intended goal of the GOP provided Iran refuses to comply.

Logic failure. If he didn't care about what the people think, he wouldn't be care about his legacy (which is how people will think of him).

BS! If Obama did care, one iota cared, he would look at the polls and walk away. 58% is quite alarming. This idiot will pay attention to the polls when it doesn't directly affect him, but indirectly, he just doesn't give a ****!

If he cares about his legacy, then he cares what people think. So which is it?

As I said, he cares WHAT THE WORLD thinks, not the American people. Which is why I said, the man doesn't care about his own country and he proved that once again. I'm not in the slightest surprised.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Unless your name is Barack Hussein Obama, you most definitely can and will!

The difference is, the GOP is NOT trying to destroy Iran

Iran has never tried to destroy the US, so it's a strawman argument.

Remember, there is a middle YOU DON'T NEED TO GO TO WAR in order to squeeze Iran. You just pile on more sanctions as much and as many as you can.

Or, you come up with an agreement to ensure that they are not creating nuclear weapons, thereby not punishing the populace for the actions of the government.

BS! If Obama did care, one iota cared, he would look at the polls and walk away. 58% is quite alarming. This idiot will pay attention to the polls when it doesn't directly affect him, but indirectly, he just doesn't give a ****!

You've ignored what I said. If he didn't care about what the people think of him, he wouldn't care about his legacy (which is what people will think of him). You are saying he doesn't care about what the people think of him, so that means that he doesn't care about his legacy. This is what you are saying Bass.

he cares WHAT THE WORLD thinks

As any good president will. America does not live in a vaccuum.

The MSM has been brainwashing the US for so long now, you have to expect a little anti-Iran bullshit from some.

For example, the line "going back 36 years." The writer is specifically talking about the 1979 Iranian revolution. It seems our high school history teachers didn't do a very good job with some, as the CIA and their puppet leader was finally kicked out of Iran in 1979. Actually, we Americans should love this kind of revolution, but the power elite and their MSM puppets have told you to hate this. Strange. It really amazes me how we have so much loyalty to a banker/wall street power structure when all they've done is decrease our wealth as a nation by allowing jobs to escape to third world slave labor nations. What it has been is a 36 year diversion tactic so the sheep never ask themselves WHY our CIA overthrew the democratically elected leader Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh back in 1953. The joint US-British operation was its second attempt because Mossadegh had nationalized the nations major assets. So, what's the difference between nationalizing or selling off your assets to third world slave labor nations? The fat cats don't get a piece of the pie, that's what.

I think it's nice to have a president who doesn't want the world to think the US is a land of bomb-happy hypocrites. I mean, we may very well be that. But it would be nice not to advertise it as if we believe our ability to bomb you to glass makes us better than everyone else.

Iran has never tried to destroy the US, so it's a strawman argument.

Not yet, give them time. Oh, and ask the Mullahs if they want America.....wait, the Ayatollah did say "Death to America." Maybe he was in a bad mood and woke up on the wrong side of the bed or Khomeini, he shouted that too, but maybe he was just a grumpy old man. LOL Keep telling yourself that, Strange.

Or, you come up with an agreement to ensure that they are not creating nuclear weapons, thereby not punishing the populace for the actions of the government.

Sadly, that's on the Mullah's or are you...gasp suggesting we should go to war??!! Shame one you! So which is it? Either impose tough sanctions, which will hurt, which they are supposed to do, PUNISH! Or go to war? At this point, NO one wants a war, neither the libs or the GOP. But there are other ways to bring them to their knees.

As any good president will. America does not live in a vaccuum.

If you think so, that's why he's NOT my president. I want an American president, NOT a UN world president, so once he's out of office which will be in exactly 584 days (Hallelujah) we can get someone that will put America and its interests first and take care of the people. Then once the country is somewhat functioning, then he can go off merrily embracing and cuddle up trying to get along with his European counterparts for all I care.

For example, the line "going back 36 years." The writer is specifically talking about the 1979 Iranian revolution. It seems our high school history teachers didn't do a very good job with some, as the CIA and their puppet leader was finally kicked out of Iran in 1979.

Actually, the teachers did do an excellent job, at the same time; kidnapping is kidnapping, hostage taking is hostage taking, come on, now.

Actually, we Americans should love this kind of revolution, but the power elite and their MSM puppets have told you to hate this. Strange.

I'm all for revolution, just don't take my people in the process out of some vendetta and we have NO problem.

It really amazes me how we have so much loyalty to a banker/wall street power structure when all they've done is decrease our wealth as a nation by allowing jobs to escape to third world slave labor nations. What it has been is a 36 year diversion tactic so the sheep never ask themselves WHY our CIA overthrew the democratically elected leader Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh back in 1953. The joint US-British operation was its second attempt because Mossadegh had nationalized the nations major assets. So, what's the difference between nationalizing or selling off your assets to third world slave labor nations? The fat cats don't get a piece of the pie, that's what.

You're playing with semantics now. You can disseminate and cherry pick anything to suit an argument going back to the beginning of man. If the Pilgrims wouldn't have landed on Plymouth Rock, If the Jews never entered Europe and so on and so on. These are all worthless semantic arguments that are never ending and will give anyone a severe migraine if want to dwell on these issues. However, you choose to pick your argument and whatever side you are on, the fact remains, the Iranians are and have for the last 36 years caused tremendous damage to the middle east to its neighbors and the US, now does that mean that the US didn't make any mistakes, it does not, but the facts remain as to what Iran has done over the last 36 years and as long as the Mullahs control that country, don't ever expect relations to be civil.

Not yet, give them time.

That's the kind of talk that leads to the invasion of sovereign nations that have not attacked you. You would think you Americans would have learned your lesson about doing that.

"his countrymen greeted the announcement of the accord with celebrations in the streets."

The GOP-Tea stands there, threatening some action in 2017 about some deviate belief in the man in the sky nonsense. And then they revert to their core message, 'that black fellow is probably from Kenya', you know? What a back water loser the GOP-Tea has become. Sad actually. Talk to a Republican, talk to an 1820s slaver. How sad. It must be tough to be the laughing stock of the nation and world. GOP-Tea, Super Patriots, just not very bright and so very, very tiresome.

No, just going by facts and history

bass -- As I have said repeatedly, until you can articulate a convincing argument about how what Obama is doing with Iran is demonstrably different than what Reagan did in the START treaty with Russia in the 70's, you are just a hater -- pure and simple.

If the Pilgrims wouldn't have landed on Plymouth Rock

You really make me laugh bass4funk. JT would be boring without you. Keep up the good work!

Actually, we Americans should love this kind of revolution, but the power elite and their MSM puppets have told you to hate this.

Actually, I get the impression that most Americans at the time did not care much either way about Iran until Iran took over the US Embassy and held its occupants hostage. I believe that is when the general public clearly turned against Iran. It was not the MSM that took over the embassy and held its occupants hostage after all.

The insane Republicans are more worried about Obama's legacy than President Obama himself.

Despite their one and only tactic of utter obstruction in opposition, against all odds great things have been achieved by this man, as well as managing to fix the abject mess left by the last insane Republican administration.

The American Taliban, the GOP. Live from the mental asylum. And like their fundie, middle age fanatic counterparts in the middle east, they cannot create. They only know how to destroy.

bass

there are other ways to bring them to their knees.

just pile on more sanctions as much and as many as you can.

And the result of that policy toward North Korea and Cuba has been a shining example of success. Animosity and non-engagement has made the world a much more beautiful place, hasn't it.

he's NOT my president.

Then you're a traitor, plain and simple. I understand that you hate Obama's policies, but to disallow the position to which he was democratically elected twice is traitorous. I never said such a thing about any president. You should be embarrassed about yourself as a so-called American and journalist.

You're a wellspring of bitterness and hatred, my friend, and a real detriment to constructive discourse.

Actually, I get the impression that most Americans at the time did not care much either way about Iran until Iran took over the US Embassy and held its occupants hostage. I believe that is when the general public clearly turned against Iran. It was not the MSM that took over the embassy and held its occupants hostage after all.

You understand the word "should" I assume. The "general public" was not aware of the CIA/British 1953 coup, so how could they have made a logical conclusion about the "hostages"? Geesh! Is critical thinking so dead that you can't understand how the MSM manipulates the information?

What we REALLY should be talking about is the lead-up to the 1953 coup and why they thought it was necessary to overthrow a democratically elected leader of the Middle East? OOOHH NO! Can't do that!

Quite cowardly if you ask me.

'the Iranians are and have for the last 36 years caused tremendous damage to the middle east to its neighbors and the US'

The neocons achieved far more 'damage to the Middle East to its neighbors and to the US' in far fewer than 36 years. These people could teach Iran a masterclass.

Iran currently has a joke of a government, but my understanding is the people are pro-US. This deal will only work if it encourages the mullahs to give up power eventually.

"Netanyahu, who has the ear of Republicans who control both houses of the U.S. Congress, said the powers negotiating with Iran must add a new demand that Tehran specifically recognise Israel’s right to exist."

Iran doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, eh? Hmmm...

Netanyahu, who has the ear of Republicans who control both houses of the U.S. Congress, said the powers negotiating with Iran must add a new demand that Tehran specifically recognise Israel’s right to exist.

Perhaps the Republicans can tie defunding Obamacare and abortions while they're at it.

It only makes sense, well, from the Republican mental asylum.

"Perhaps the Republicans can tie defunding Obamacare and abortions while they're at it."

That would be dumb, they won't do that.

The "general public" was not aware of the CIA/British 1953 coup, so how could they have made a logical conclusion about the "hostages"?

? So, a wrong in 1953 makes a wrong in 1979 okay? Taking over an embassy and keeping its occupants as hostages is completely against international law. There is and was only one logical conclusion about the hostages (absolutely no need for quotes around the word, FYI). It was completely wrong. The negative reaction of the American public to it was a reasonable expectation.

Geesh! Is critical thinking so dead that you can't understand

Oh yeah? Well, I am rubber and you are glue. Everything you say to me bounces off and sticks to you.

how the MSM manipulates the information?

Oh how sick I am of this 'MSM' nebulous claim. What sources do you use, waves from space? You are having a discussion on a major news portal. Are you aware of this? You obviously read and use the information in major news sources when it suits you. So, consider climbing off your high horse and just having a discussion without the need to pretend you have some secret magical source of information. Thanks.

Nothing excuses a country taking over another country's embassy. Nothing. Only a person who prefers anarchy would say otherwise.

serrano,

That would be dumb, they won't do that.

Puhlease. Dumb is what they do best. The GOP barometer starts at "dumb" revs up to "idiotic" and finishes in the red at"insane".

As in this case.

Don't believe me old buddy, even one of your own GOP presidential inmates, sorry - candidates back this up:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/bobby-jindal-gop_n_2121511.html

Bobby Jindal: GOP Should 'Stop Being The Stupid Party'

Nothing excuses a country taking over another country's embassy. Nothing. Only a person who prefers anarchy would say otherwise.

Ronald Reagan, bless his bleeding anarchist soul, apparently was of that more forgiving type as evidenced by the boatload of illicit weapons and key-shaped cake he sent to the mullahs. All of that, though, has nothing to do with the current agreement proposal.

Hopefully this is all jolly from here on out. And why is there so many Israeli haters on here.... I mean come on....

Ronald Reagan, bless his bleeding anarchist soul, apparently was of that more forgiving type as evidenced by the boatload of illicit weapons and key-shaped cake he sent to the mullahs.

Yes, you correct and the mullahs gleefully took those things all the while talking negatively about the US to the Iranian public. Good point. However, I still believe that nothing excuses a country taking over another country's embassy. Having been a reader of your posts for some time, I would assume you would agree with me on this. I am correct?

Slum dog, of course I would agree - with the exception of the embedded CIA personnel, they were simply bureaucrats doing their jobs, and the 400+ days they were held must have been horrific for all of them. How that stands in comparison to a CIA-instituted coup against a democratically-elected government is impossible to judge as neither are cricket nor chess.

That said, diplomacy is like marriage in that you must keep your eye on the ball, which is to achieve the best relationship possible with what you have - and what you have today is not necessarily what you had a few decades ago. After a long period of conflict sans war, both sides must bite the bullet if progress is to be made, and Rouhani will likely have as difficult a task asking his parliament to agree to any deal as Obama will have with Congress.

Iran lives in a tough neighborhood, but after Israel and Turkey, it is the most democratic. For all of the talk of Iranian "terrorism," Iran has been most reserved compared with the international violence born from within Sunni countries. In fact, Iran and America share many common interests in the region, and the growing awareness of this by other Gulf states, combined with their inability to democratize, is making them increasingly nervous - as it should.

As Reagan said: Trust, but verify. Hell of a lot better than war.

As Reagan said: Trust, but verify. Hell of a lot better than war.

That is the bottom line.

Well, actually war is sometimes the answer. Just not here. Just not now.

Because all I'm saying "give war a chance" in the right time in the right place. I'm thinking Maryland 1860, Manchuria 1933, and Czechoslovakia 1937

The GOP-Tea stands there, threatening some action in 2017 about some deviate belief in the man in the sky nonsense. And then they revert to their core message, 'that black fellow is probably from Kenya', you know? What a back water loser the GOP-Tea has become. Sad actually. Talk to a Republican, talk to an 1820s slaver. How sad. It must be tough to be the laughing stock of the nation and world. GOP-Tea, Super Patriots, just not very bright and so very, very tiresome.

That's the kind of talk that leads to the invasion of sovereign nations that have not attacked you. You would think you Americans would have learned your lesson about doing that.

We will once the radical terrorists can promise not to destroy us or our allies, if not, we always have factories that can make more bombs.

As I have said repeatedly, until you can articulate a convincing argument about how what Obama is doing with Iran is demonstrably different than what Reagan did in the START treaty with Russia in the 70's, you are just a hater -- pure and simple.

I did repeatedly and you chose to blow off the facts and what I wrote, I don't have the time and the patience to teach someone something and they refuse to hear the truth. As for hating, I hate NO one, but I do know that Obama is the Worst president we ever had. I'm more or less disappointed, but not entirely surprised.

And the result of that policy toward North Korea and Cuba has been a shining example of success. Animosity and non-engagement has made the world a much more beautiful place, hasn't it.

Shining examples of not consulting congress and getting congressional approval, like with anything, it will go through a review process and if congress doesn't think that it's in the best interest of they USE to normalize complete relations with Cuba, it's not going to happen. Once this clown is out of office, we can hopefully get back to some sense of normalcy.

Then you're a traitor, plain and simple.

Nonsense! If I were, I'd damn make sure to renounce my citizenship. I love my country very much, but can't wait for the buffoons to hand over the keys in 2 years.

I understand that you hate Obama's policies, but to disallow the position to which he was democratically elected twice is traitorous. I never said such a thing about any president. You should be embarrassed about yourself as a so-called American and journalist.

No, I'm embarrassed by this president and to have to hold my head down in deep shame.

You're a wellspring of bitterness and hatred, my friend, and a real detriment to constructive discourse.

Actually, most of the politicians in Washington and in particular the Dems that are not happy until they completely destroy the country and they are a struck as to why they keep losing at elections....Thinking like that and not accepting the truth. They already got hit with a dose of reality twice, how much more punishment do they want to take?

The neocons achieved far more 'damage to the Middle East to its neighbors and to the US' in far fewer than 36 years. These people could teach Iran a masterclass.

Really, don't be a partisan, you need to add a handful Dems in that voted for these wars, it wasn't like they were silent and by the way, when will you Libs come on JTDAN and condemn Muslims killing other Muslims which are the absolute MAJORITY of all the atrocities that are being committed in the ME.

Iran lives in a tough neighborhood, but after Israel and Turkey, it is the most democratic.

I never knew living under Sharia is considered Democratic.

For all of the talk of Iranian "terrorism," Iran has been most reserved compared with the international violence born from within Sunni countries.

You need that chronological list again of what Iran has done regarding terrorism?

In fact, Iran and America share many common interests in the region, and the growing awareness of this by other Gulf states, combined with their inability to democratize, is making them increasingly nervous - as it should.

Keep telling yourself that. Even there are many DEMS that think this was a bad and signed on with the Repubs thinking that this loon went way over his head on this one. Like I said, nothing to worry about once he's gone.

The tentative agreement, struck on Thursday after eight days of talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, clears the way for a settlement to allay Western fears that Iran could build an atomic bomb, with economic sanctions on Tehran being lifted in return.

Iran has had nuclear weapons for some time so the way they are stating "could build" is rather interesting.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/27/iran-already-has-nuclear-weapons

this loon went way over his head on this one

In that case you also have to believe that Angela Merkel and David Cameron are loons. Since you don't seem to follow the news, let me remind you again that the negotiations were between Iran and the United States, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, Germany, plus the European Union. It wasn't just looney Obama against the evil Ayatollah.

nothing to worry about once he's gone.

Yes, because you inhabit a cartoon universe.

In that case you also have to believe that Angela Merkel and David Cameron are loons.

I don't believe their loons per say, but I know they haven't the slightest clue as to what the Israelis and the Sunnis are facing because they don't live in the region and have to DIRECTLY deal with the Mullahs. Just because you're a leader of a country, doesn't mean, you can't make mistakes, even lasting consequential ones.

Since you don't seem to follow the news,

I do, I need to pay my bills, continue....

let me remind you again that the negotiations were between Iran and the United States, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, Germany, plus the European Union. It wasn't just looney Obama against the evil Ayatollah.

But Obama was leading the negotiations and the Europeans would have kept the sanctions in place if Obama would have pushed for it, also not everyone in Europe was happy with the deal.

Some of the French delegates were not happy entirely with the outcome of the deal, a bit skeptical.

Yes, because you inhabit a cartoon universe.

Actually, that universe is inhabited with far-left libs already.

Iranian president says nuclear deal is start of new relationship with world"

Yeah, and the mullahs just started going in the right direction by now "partially" lifting a ban on women attending sports matches. Makes me laugh. They still got a long way to go-

Nothing excuses a country taking over another country's embassy. Nothing. Only a person who prefers anarchy would say otherwise.

So you don't like revolutions. Got it!

Your life is 80 years tops. So what about the last 4000 years or the next 4000 years? Can you even think in terms like that? Get off your high horse? I'm laughing

So you don't like revolutions. Got it!

No, it seems you have not 'gotten it'. This is not about my opinions regarding revolutions. Revolutions are up to the citizens of the country concerned. I am against invading another country's embassy and holding its occupants hostage. It is wrong. It is against one of the most basic of international rules. International rules dictate that an attack on an embassy is an attack on the country it represents.

I'm laughing

Whatever floats your boat. However, what I have written are facts. If you enjoy laughing at and/or ignoring facts, that is your choice.

Revo!utions are a major last time resort using military means and the revolution leaders run it using their extremists ideology.

Not the best way to change a government and the thinking of a populace.

Revolutions are extreme and NOT beneficial to the populace.

Just a last resort to the extremists proclaiming to benefit the populace.

Revolutions are extreme and NOT beneficial to the populace. Just a last resort to the extremists proclaiming to benefit the populace.

-George Washington

bass: As for hating, I hate NO one, but I do know that Obama is the Worst president we ever had.

I just wanted an encore for that sentence.

But Obama was leading the negotiations and the Europeans would have kept the sanctions in place if Obama would have pushed for it

When dealing with Iran it's always been a team effort. It's not like Obama was directing Russia to take Iran's uranium. And someone had to take the lead while Bush kept the US away from the table all those years.

As far as I can tell your position is that the US will dictate to the others what the plan is, and the plan so far is to dictate to Iran what they will do. It's hard enough to get the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran to agree on much of anything, and I'm guessing that bowing down to the US's sudden new policy isn't going to generate much excitement in the group. It will most likely isolate us.

It's obvious that you're underestimating just how much our relationships would sour if the US unilaterally decided to end diplomacy and essentially walk out on our partners in the 11th hour. You keep talking about sanctions and I have no idea why you think the others would go along with that, and we need them to go along with it or else it doesn't work. There would be serious backlash on this issue and it would no doubt spill over into other areas.

So I am against invading another country's embassy

How about invading another country (CIA coup duh)? That's OK? Your logic....wait...there's no logic in your comment. grow up

Granted, I didn't know George Washington said that, just expressing my thoughts not being american nor versed on them. But read a LOT from Plato, Cicero, Sun Tzu and many more,

@ It"S ME

It's OK. At least you're thinking about it. Many will keep parroting the MSM

How about invading another country (CIA coup duh)? That's OK?

? Please read more carefully. I wrote this above:

slumdogApr. 04, 2015 - 07:59PM JST

? So, a wrong in 1953 makes a wrong in 1979 okay? Taking over an embassy and keeping its occupants as hostages is completely against international law. There is and was only one logical conclusion about the hostages (absolutely no need for quotes around the word, FYI). It was completely wrong. The negative reaction of the American public to it was a reasonable expectation.

Your attempt at logic is to claim that two wrongs make a right. I disagree. International law also disagrees with you. Iran was wrong for invading another country's embassy and for holding its occupants hostage, plain and simple.

Oh, and try to calm down, won't you? Logic goes out the window when you let your emotions get the best of you. Your 6:14pm is an excellent example of this.

When dealing with Iran it's always been a team effort. It's not like Obama was directing Russia to take Iran's uranium. And someone had to take the lead while Bush kept the US away from the table all those years.

As he should have. There should have never been an attempt to bargain any deal with Iran until they comply unconditionally with all IAEA rules NO matter what, any other excuse, walk away, that's it! If Iran can't or will not do that, NO DEAL!

As far as I can tell your position is that the US will dictate to the others what the plan is, and the plan so far is to dictate to Iran what they will do.

As long as they pose a threat to our allies and to the region, Yes, exactly.

It's hard enough to get the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran to agree on much of anything, and I'm guessing that bowing down to the US's sudden new policy isn't going to generate much excitement in the group. It will most likely isolate us.

Again, my problem was never with the Iranian people, but the Mullahs are a serious problem or would you disagree?

It's obvious that you're underestimating just how much our relationships would sour if the US unilaterally decided to end diplomacy and essentially walk out on our partners in the 11th hour. You keep talking about sanctions and I have no idea why you think the others would go along with that, and we need them to go along with it or else it doesn't work. There would be serious backlash on this issue and it would no doubt spill over into other areas.

So do you think it's ok to alienate our allies over a deal with a country that we can't trust, haven't trusted and very skeptical of what their true intentions really are. Churchill and Stalin trusted Hitler once as well and look what happened with that. Just a little food for thought....

SuperLib: It's hard enough to get the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran to agree on much of anything, and I'm guessing that bowing down to the US's sudden new policy isn't going to generate much excitement in the group. It will most likely isolate us.

bass: Again, my problem was never with the Iranian people, but the Mullahs are a serious problem or would you disagree?

OK, noted. You don't have an issue with the people, but the government of Iran.

Now, back on topic. If the US walks from the table, what kind of leverage would we have over Europe, China, and Russia collectively to force them to meet our demands? I don't see how this is going to happen. Yes, I know a President can speak a demand but my question is what would force that group of countries to do something they do not want to do?

We don't have any leverage, except the power of persuasion. Let's face it. The Europeans are looking at $$$$ and they are more than eager to lift sanctions, Germany already established flights to Teheran before the ink is dry on this deal. If the Europeans lift their sanctions, the US sanctions won't be enough to contain Iran. But if the US were to really push, they would follow, but since the Obama admin is not pushing they won't either. Now, I will say this the ONLY good thing out of this (and I will give a light credit) that might come if anything else, you might see your gas prices go down, that's for a lack of term better, given the circumstances. At what cost though. But I still think, generally speaking, this deal essentially is bad.

I still think, generally speaking, this deal essentially is bad.

Of course you do, it was put together by the Obama administration. Here is how you can tell if Bass will think something is bad or not:

Was it put together by Obama and or his adminstration? Yes: He thinks it's bad. No: Then does it make the Obama administration look good? Then it's bad.