Iran, six world powers clinch breakthrough nuclear deal

[cabri]

So if one side is jerking the other around, there is no way to determine sincerity. :thumbsdown:

This is no different than the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
Neither side is willing to give nor actually put anything on the table for review/evaluation.

Presently the US side of this Iranian issue has been to provide carrots again and again to keep them at the table. Shades of North Korea.

 

[K1052]

So if one side is jerking the other around, there is no way to determine sincerity. :thumbsdown:

This is no different than the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
Neither side is willing to give nor actually put anything on the table for review/evaluation.

Presently the US side of this Iranian issue has been to provide carrots again and again to keep them at the table. Shades of North Korea.

It is the job of the respective diplomats to determine sincerity and back it up with milestones in any executed agreement. Failure of either party to live up to the agreement or circumvent it causes the withdrawal of any concessions granted. The issues facing a US/Iran deal are not an intractable conflict like your examples. Also, you are merely providing conjecture that fits your own views about what is and isn't happening in the negotiations.

 

[cabri]

When one side is willing to get an agreement at any cost for political gain; the internals become suspect.

Painting over of rust does not remove it, it merely hides it from being viewed. It is still gnawing away at the underlying structure.

Concessions have continually been made to keep Iran at the table - yet any agreement is continually being stalled.

Iran's public statements have indicated that they do not intend on giving up anything and they so far have demonstrated via actions (not just words) that they are willing to accept the results of such a direction.

So we are giving them things that are being asked in return for what?

Just like has been done for NK.

 

[K1052]

When one side is willing to get an agreement at any cost for political gain; the internals become suspect.

If the US was truly willing to make an agreement "at any cost" don't you think it would have been concluded by now?

Painting over of rust does not remove it, it merely hides it from being viewed. It is still gnawing away at the underlying structure.

Empty rhetoric supported by a nonsensical metaphor.

Concessions have continually been made to keep Iran at the table - yet any agreement is continually being stalled.

Enumerate these points and provide citation.

Iran's public statements have indicated that they do not intend on giving up anything and they so far have demonstrated via actions (not just words) that they are willing to accept the results of such a direction.

Our own Congress is trying to pass Iran sanctions in the middle of a negotiation. If that doesn't look like a bad faith effort from parts of a government I don't know what does. Their domestic rhetoric intended for the hardliners is not germane to the process.

So we are giving them things that are being asked in return for what?

They get access to funds and eventual re-entry into global commerce to stabilize their economic situation (and the resultant domestic unrest it has been causing). We get a reasonable guarantee that they won't peruse a weapon that would further destabilize a part of the world that has enough instability already. There is no way to pull Iran back from breakout capacity short of a full scale ground invasion or the preemptive use of US strategic nuclear weapons, outside the framework of a negotiated compromise.

Just like has been done for NK.

Iran isn't great from a lot of perspectives but is an order of magnitude or two more trustworthy than NK . Hell we are allied with and sell weapons to worse nations.

 

[Jhhnn]

When one side is willing to get an agreement at any cost for political gain; the internals become suspect.

Painting over of rust does not remove it, it merely hides it from being viewed. It is still gnawing away at the underlying structure.

Concessions have continually been made to keep Iran at the table - yet any agreement is continually being stalled.

Iran's public statements have indicated that they do not intend on giving up anything and they so far have demonstrated via actions (not just words) that they are willing to accept the results of such a direction.

So we are giving them things that are being asked in return for what?

Just like has been done for NK.

Or maybe it's just time to recognize reality, embrace the future rather than nursing the recriminations of the past.

It's pointless to insist that Iran give up any of her nuclear power ambitions. It's imperative that the IAEA formulate protocols for that, ones that prevent creation of weapons grade material. That's what really matters.

The Bush Admin backed the US into a corner on that, one where we have to lose face to exit. I doubt that the new Senate would support that at all, chest thumping idiots leading the charge.

Stalling? We're the ones doing the stalling because our own hardliners will easily be whipped into a delusional frenzy should that sort of agreement be reached. They're still trying to force regime change, another bit of imperialistic foolishness.

Obviously, it's the only sort of agreement possible.