Double overtime: Faltering Iran nuclear talks extended again

[webfact]

Double overtime: Faltering Iran nuclear talks extended again
By MATTHEW LEE and GEORGE JAHN

LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — With even a vague outline of an Iran nuclear deal eluding their grasp, negotiators headed for double overtime Wednesday night in a marathon attempt to find common ground for a more important task — forging a final deal by the end of June.

Iran and six world powers had cited progress in abandoning their March 31 deadline for the basic understanding that would prepare the ground for a new phase of negotiations on a substantive deal. But as differences persisted into late Wednesday, the State Department announced that Secretary of State John Kerry was postponing his departure and would remain until at least Thursday morning.

The talks — the latest in more than a decade of diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear prowess — will hit the weeklong mark on Thursday, with diplomats from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany scrambling to reach a framework accord with Iran.

"We continue to make progress but have not reached a political understanding," spokeswoman Marie Harf said in announcing Kerry's decision.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said negotiators were still facing a "tough struggle."

A French diplomat said French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius was heading for Lausanne less than a day after he departed. Asked why, the diplomat referred a reporter to the minister's comments earlier in the day when he said he would come back if there were chances for a deal.

At the same time, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif accused his country's negotiating partners, particularly the U.S., of having "defective" political will in the talks.

"I've always said that an agreement and pressure do not go together, they are mutually exclusive," he told reporters. "So our friends need to decide whether they want to be with Iran based on respect or whether they want to continue based on pressure."

The negotiators' intention is to produce a joint statement outlining general political commitments to resolve concerns about the Iranians' nuclear program in exchange for relief of economic sanctions against Iran. In addition, they are trying to fashion other documents that would lay out in more detail the steps they must take by June 30 to meet those goals.

But Iran has pushed back, demanding a general statement with few specifics. That is politically unpalatable for the Obama administration, which must convince a hostile Congress that it has made progress in the talks so lawmakers do not enact new sanctions that could destroy the negotiations.

By blowing through self-imposed deadlines, Obama risks further antagonizing lawmakers in both parties who are poised to take their own action to upend a deal if they determine the president has been too conciliatory.

The initial response to the extensions from Republicans suggested they had already come to that conclusion.

"It is clear, the negotiations are not going well," said Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham in a statement. "At every step, the Iranians appear intent on retaining the capacity to achieve a nuclear weapon.

Iran's Zarif insisted the result of this round of talks "will not be more than a statement." But a senior Western official said Iran's negotiating partners would not accept a document that contained no details. The official was not authorized to speak to the negotiations by name and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi named differences on sanctions relief as one dispute — but also suggested some softening of Tehran's long-term insistence that all sanctions be lifted immediately once a final deal takes effect.

He told Iranian TV that economic, financial, oil and bank sanctions imposed by the U.S., the European Union and others should be done away with as "the first step of the deal." Alluding to separate U.N. sanctions, he said a separate "framework" was needed for them.

Araghchi has spoken of such an arrangement before. But both Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani have since demanded full and total sanctions lifting, and the floating of the approach now suggested an Iranian shift.

Araghchi also rejected U.S. demands of strict controls on Iran's uranium enrichment-related research and development, saying such activities "should continue."

The U.S. and its negotiating partners want to crimp Iranian efforts to improve the performance of centrifuges that enrich uranium because advancing the technology could let Iran produce material that could be used to arm a nuclear weapon much more quickly than at present.

The additional documents the U.S. wants would allow the sides to make the case that the next round of talks will not simply be a continuation of negotiations that have already been twice extended since an interim agreement between Iran, the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany was concluded in 2013. President Barack Obama and other leaders, including Iran's, have said they are not interested in a third extension.

Meanwhile, the White House says new sanctions could not only scuttle further diplomatic efforts to contain Iran's nuclear work but possibly lead Israel to act on threats to use military force to accomplish that goal.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has campaigned tirelessly for months against the emerging agreement, said it would "ensure a bad deal that would endanger Israel, the Middle East and the peace of the world."


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-04-02

[Steely Dan]

Khamanei never recognized a two stage schedule for negotiations from the start. Obama insisted on one for talks which had already been postponed on three separate occasions. Obama has folded as per usual, something for which he can always be relied on.

P.s note the inversion of reality from the White House in claiming sanctions would force Israel to use military action when in effect negotiating a bad deal would. To keep folding to Iran guarantees a bad deal, if a deal can't be had then letting Iran run the clock puts the world in greater danger.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Daniel Ingalls]

How many more millions of dollars is the USA going to spend to keep them at the negotiation tables? This an old ploy done time after time. Isn't anyone wise to this game being carried out. What happened in North Korea with their Nuclear program. Didn't we say we will never allow them to have Nukes? What happened to that strategy ?

Iran will go the same way, after sucking hundreds of Millions of dollars from us. They will have Nukes despite our opposition. What will sanctions do? We had sanctions on Cuba for over 60 years, and now we are just lifting them up. Soon Miami Florida will loose out on the tourist trade with Cuba, once they open up casinos again.

[tartempion]

Common, let Iran have their nuke and see what they'll do with that

[snarky66]

Why do we need five or six different threads on the same topic?

[RockyBeerbelly]

How many more millions of dollars is the USA going to spend to keep them at the negotiation tables? This an old ploy done time after time. Isn't anyone wise to this game being carried out. What happened in North Korea with their Nuclear program. Didn't we say we will never allow them to have Nukes? What happened to that strategy ?

Iran will go the same way, after sucking hundreds of Millions of dollars from us. They will have Nukes despite our opposition. What will sanctions do? We had sanctions on Cuba for over 60 years, and now we are just lifting them up. Soon Miami Florida will loose out on the tourist trade with Cuba, once they open up casinos again.

Iran sucking hundreds of millions of dollars from us to keep them at the negotiation table? Where did you get this number?

And even if it would be true, I'd say its better to stay at the negotiation table costing millions, iso another war which will cost billions.....and many lives

[arjunadawn]

Why do we need five or six different threads on the same topic?

...because this percolated to the top of the non stop one more dose of jihad murder, mayhem, and conquest threads! Is there really anything else going on now that its 'game-on' for "Civilization Jihad?"

Do people even realize that Iran represents (almost in totality) the same exact threat as DAESH/IS, Boko Haram, Taliban, Abu Sayeff, Jamiah Islamyia, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc, ad nauseum? [You] folks must surely realize that Iran getting a nuclear ability is no different than giving a bomb to ISIS?

What makes a shia different from a sunni is nearly undetectable to a Westerner (infidel). What makes a sunni different from DAESH/IS is nearly undetectable to a shia. What makes a shia different from an infidel is nearly undetectable to a sunni. What makes a sunni different from an infidel is nearly undetectable to a shia. What makes an infidel different from a shia or sunni is expressly stated, agreed, and enjoined by both shia/sunni scriptures- which differ only marginally! They may fight in their own home but know this- the cause of the conflict between shia ans sunni is not in faith rather in who will lead the house of war to the house of submission and rule over global jihad- sharia globally! Pick either side; [you] lose! [You] are the goal, not the mediator; not partner; not an observer; [you] are the prey!

Why would [you] allow your conviction to ever sway toward thinking it was okay for Iran to have a path... even a potential path... to a nuclear ability?

It is 6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other. The only bloodshed taking place in the region between shia and sunni has nothing to do with Western values, Western ideals, needs, goals, aims, desires, security... the only thing taking place in the middle east now between sunni and shia is who will lead the caliphate that will next rule the infidel world and reclaim all the warqf that the infidels now hold. The issue is not sectarian conflict; the issue is the destruction of the West!

[Linky]

If they are nearing an agreement why should they stop. Of course keep negotiating.

[h90]

Khamanei never recognized a two stage schedule for negotiations from the start. Obama insisted on one for talks which had already been postponed on three separate occasions. Obama has folded as per usual, something for which he can always be relied on.

P.s note the inversion of reality from the White House in claiming sanctions would force Israel to use military action when in effect negotiating a bad deal would. To keep folding to Iran guarantees a bad deal, if a deal can't be had then letting Iran run the clock puts the world in greater danger.

Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Israel, North Korea, UK has nuclear weapons, in many more countries there are nuclear weapons stored, like in Germany.

Why are they allowed to have Nukes and Iran not?

[Publicus]

Six threads, six soapboxes for those who fortunately for us have the time on their hands to save the world from Islamic Civilizational Jihad (ICJ).

It is the world that is being saved, izzit not? Yet Jihad seems focused on the West with but a few straggler groups elsewhere. Indeed, it would seem India, Indonesia, China, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, among many others get a free pass from the House of War not to mention the House of Submission.

Iran will not easily get a nuclear weapons capability but if it might eventually do that, the mullahs aren't going to nuclear attack anyone so that they can be annihilated before Iranian mushroom clouds over Peoria can dissipate. Nuking Israel means also that the Palestinians get taken away in the same attack, to include most if not all of Lebannon, Jordan too. Majority Hindu India has a large Muslim population, so would the Islamic Civilizational Jihadists in Tehran nuke nuclear India too. If so, would that precipitate India to loose its missiles on Pakistan before Pakistan could take its own such initiative. And so on.....

The soapbox strategists don't believe in diplomacy, don't believe in negotiation....they don't believe in peace and they are out of the mainstream, discredited by the Words of Mass Deception of Bush-Cheney and the neocons who are raging on yet again that war is the answer, and that war is always the first and only answer.

[arjunadawn]

Khamanei never recognized a two stage schedule for negotiations from the start. Obama insisted on one for talks which had already been postponed on three separate occasions. Obama has folded as per usual, something for which he can always be relied on.

P.s note the inversion of reality from the White House in claiming sanctions would force Israel to use military action when in effect negotiating a bad deal would. To keep folding to Iran guarantees a bad deal, if a deal can't be had then letting Iran run the clock puts the world in greater danger.

Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Israel, North Korea, UK has nuclear weapons, in many more countries there are nuclear weapons stored, like in Germany.

Why are they allowed to have Nukes and Iran not?

Good question from this generation, or the present, asking the world, history, and posterity: "Why are [they] allowed to have Nukes and Iran not?"

As far as I know only my beloved country ever used an atomic bomb (and I increasingly have doubts it was actually necessary). So why protest other countries ambitions or needs when your own house is made of glass?

When Pandora's Box was opened, and for whatever reasons, its contents used in the last century, the world was aghast at what had been released and before concepts of containment could be constructed strategic aims to possess the same evil defensive/offensive deterrent spread through those countries who were both able and willing to march toward possession of the same powerful weapon; the recent World War highly suggested this was wise. Then, in lucid moments, the world considered what was being created, what has been wrought by not only creating and using the bomb but by its dissemination. It would be a long time before costs, means, and knowledge of such a weapon would be commonplace and more accessible. They elected to try and halt the spread of this terrible weapon that was already possessed by few.

This is, IMO, the background of why the march toward possessing this horror turned to a desire to restrict access to it. What emptied from Pandora's Box could never again be returned inside but [they] felt they could limit its accessibility. Treaties, conventions and the lot were envisioned and signatories enticed to sign. There simply had to be a place where this stopped.

Yet other countries would possess the bomb irrespective of the intent of the Atomic Club above; Israel, N. Korea, Pakistan. In all three instances treaties were not tight enough or restrictions sufficient and the we see how the covenants of the Atomic Club are not fail-safe. In the above three cases subversion, distraction, spying, and a host of other seedy arrangements enabled this countries to bypass the Atomic Club. After all, what they sought from Pandora was not the bomb itself, but knowledge- and this could hardly be contained.

What is demonstrable with all but Israel, is once breakout is achieved, a test done, an announcement that the State has "become nuclear" is used to leverage conventional forces and immunize the country in reference; more of Pandora's soiled darkness leaves the Box.

Do we really want to immunize a country like Iran?

If there is even a 5% chance (far less than that required to make the bomb in enrichment) do we really want to take the chance with regards to a country who is religiously bent on dominating its neighbors?

[Srikcir]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

How many more millions of dollars is the USA going to spend to keep them at the negotiation tables? This an old ploy done time after time. Isn't anyone wise to this game being carried out. What happened in North Korea with their Nuclear program. Didn't we say we will never allow them to have Nukes? What happened to that strategy ?

Iran will go the same way, after sucking hundreds of Millions of dollars from us. They will have Nukes despite our opposition. What will sanctions do? We had sanctions on Cuba for over 60 years, and now we are just lifting them up. Soon Miami Florida will loose out on the tourist trade with Cuba, once they open up casinos again.

Those millions of dollars came from confiscation of Iranian funds through the various sanctions.

[Srikcir]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Khamanei never recognized a two stage schedule for negotiations from the start. Obama insisted on one for talks which had already been postponed on three separate occasions. Obama has folded as per usual, something for which he can always be relied on.

P.s note the inversion of reality from the White House in claiming sanctions would force Israel to use military action when in effect negotiating a bad deal would. To keep folding to Iran guarantees a bad deal, if a deal can't be had then letting Iran run the clock puts the world in greater danger.

Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Israel, North Korea, UK has nuclear weapons, in many more countries there are nuclear weapons stored, like in Germany.

Why are they allowed to have Nukes and Iran not?

Signatory to the Non Proliferation Nuclear Agreement?

[zydeco]

Saudi Arabia is already pushing the panic button. It the agreement with Iran goes through, the Saudis will have nuclear weapons in very short order. I'm sure the Saudis wish Obama's term ended tomorrow. Effectively, Obama has jettisoned our allies, SA, Egypt, Israel, and Jordan and thrown in with the mullahs.

[snarky66]

Khamanei never recognized a two stage schedule for negotiations from the start. Obama insisted on one for talks which had already been postponed on three separate occasions. Obama has folded as per usual, something for which he can always be relied on.

P.s note the inversion of reality from the White House in claiming sanctions would force Israel to use military action when in effect negotiating a bad deal would. To keep folding to Iran guarantees a bad deal, if a deal can't be had then letting Iran run the clock puts the world in greater danger.

Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Israel, North Korea, UK has nuclear weapons, in many more countries there are nuclear weapons stored, like in Germany.

Why are they allowed to have Nukes and Iran not?

Because they are deranged homocidal maniacs who have vowed to use them? Some posters are naive in the extreme.