This argument is moot, as there is no deal.

Iran may not even be willing to resume the talks as they are in their own Vietnam

You two should feel free to add to this list:

iit should be easy for you to list the countries that are publicly opposed to the framework.

I'll start it for you:

1. Israel.

OK, your turn:

2.

3.

4.

5.

192 out of 193 UN member states support the framework. The Director of the CIA has signed off. Scores of non-partisan nuclear physicists have said it's a much better deal than they would have ever expected. IMO it's only a matter of time before the Joint Chiefs of Staff make public statements supporting the framework.

Who is opposed?

Israel and the treasonous Israel Firsters operating within the US like a virus.

I have already answered this question once but I will do it again just for you.

"Who is opposed?"

The answer is...IRAN.

Some argue that there is fine line between abject ignorance and naivete, and I'm not sure which side you've fallen in this instance. In most previous cases it was undoubtedly the former, but for now I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

What Ayatholla Khamenei is currently saying is intended primarily for domestic consumption. And more specifically for the rabid, right-wing, hard liners. In the US we have the same thing. They won't listen to reason or rational, moderate ideas. They're all about burning everything down if they don't get their way 100% of the time. You know what group I'm talking about, don't you? Of course you do.

Your desire for Israel to scuttle this peace deal is palpable, and I suppose there is a chance that the Israel Firsters in the US will be successful. But if I were a gambling man, in the end I'd say this deal goes forward.

192 out of 193 UN member states support the framework.

The framework that the Iranians and Americans both say have completely different meanings and in which many of the details have not been ironed out or publicized? Anyone who would "support" such a utter and complete mess - for anything other that political opportunism - should get their heads examined.

Anyone who would "support" such a utter and complete mess - for anything other that political opportunism - should get their heads examined.

So by "anyone" you mean 192 counties, scores of nuclear physicists, and the Director of the CIA.

Only Israel and the Israel Firsters are seeing things as they really are. OK, sure.

You two should feel free to add to this list:

iit should be easy for you to list the countries that are publicly opposed to the framework.

I'll start it for you:

1. Israel.

OK, your turn:

2.

3.

4.

5.

192 out of 193 UN member states support the framework. The Director of the CIA has signed off. Scores of non-partisan nuclear physicists have said it's a much better deal than they would have ever expected. IMO it's only a matter of time before the Joint Chiefs of Staff make public statements supporting the framework.

Who is opposed?

Israel and the treasonous Israel Firsters operating within the US like a virus.

I have already answered this question once but I will do it again just for you.

"Who is opposed?"

The answer is...IRAN.

Some argue that there is fine line between abject ignorance and naivete, and I'm not sure which side you've fallen in this instance. In most previous cases it was undoubtedly the former, but for now I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

What Ayatholla Khamenei is currently saying is intended primarily for domestic consumption. And more specifically for the rabid, right-wing, hard liners. In the US we have the same thing. They won't listen to reason or rational, moderate ideas. They're all about burning everything down if they don't get their way 100% of the time. You know what group I'm talking about, don't you? Of course you do.

Your desire for Israel to scuttle this peace deal is palpable, and I suppose there is a chance that the Israel Firsters in the US will be successful. But if I were a gambling man, in the end I'd say this deal goes forward.

"What Ayatholla Khamenei is currently saying is intended primarily for domestic consumption."

And exactly what was the purpose of those talking points released by the State Department if it wasn't for domestic consumption?

If you think it was anything other than a vaudeville act by the Obama/Kerry team to gain time and some sort of favor with the public, your own definition of ignorance and naivete which you are trying to paint me with would seem applicable to you as well.

Nothing has been signed, nothing is official and there is really only a tentative agreement to meet back at some future point in time for further discussions.

I, for one, believe neither side. You, it would seem, has a rather one sided view of this alleged agreement.

Neither side can be trusted to tell the truth.

As was pointed out on Al Jazeera today the two sides negotiating the deal that doesn't yet and may never exist have different properties. The P5+1 side is represented by people who actually have the POWER to make actual deals. The Iranian side is not. The real power to make any deal is back in Iran.

As the facade of a deal gives way to realpolitik bunker busters are mentioned again.

http://app.debka.com/p/newsupdate/11042/

Getting rid of the Iranian nukes is what matters and Obama is doing the opposite. He is making them inevitable.

So based on this ridiculous statement we are to conclude that Obama is the only one involved in the negotiations?

Your usual trolling and inflammatory nonsense. There are numerous other countries involved and without them, there will be no agreement.

Talk about trolling, Obama is the main party driving this stupid "deal" and he has admitted that his nuclear agreement with Iran only delays Tehran from eventually acquiring a weapon. Pretending otherwise is verging on delusional.

...and if you honestly believe Iran will sign all those agreements, I have a great deal on a bridge just for you and a select few others.

You bought that bridge from George W. Bush and his Dick Cheney, we know.

So rough nuggies cause nobody's buying that same old bridge which means you're stuck with the deed.

George and his Dick are still spending the money you paid 'em.

The 'For Sale' sign is btw hanging sideways by a single nail also.

Best take it down.

this stupid "deal."

If the deal is so stupid, why is it that only one country is against it?

How is it possible that 192 other nations don't see it as stupid?

Why has the CIA Director endorsed it? Is he delusional, too?

Why have scores of internationally renowned nuclear physicists publicly stated that this is, in fact, a very good deal for the P5+1? Are these nuclear physicists stupid, too?

It's because ONLY Israel and the Israel Firsters can see the truth, right?

How is it possible that 192 other nations don't see it as stupid?

Please provide some proof of your repeated claim that 192 nations support Obama's deal. The General Assembly is comprised of all 193 Members of the United Nations. These aren't all voting members and there's no way to say they all approve of anything.

Why has the CIA Director endorsed it?

You HAVE to kidding. The CIA Director is backing up the president? Who'd have guessed?

192 out of 193 UN member states support the framework.

The framework that the Iranians and Americans both say have completely different meanings and in which many of the details have not been ironed out or publicized? Anyone who would "support" such a utter and complete mess - for anything other that political opportunism - should get their heads examined.

The far right needs to show its certification of sanity first...and given Rand Paul is a medical doctor (MD & DO) no one can go to him until he himself is certified by a competent physician.

Soon after the EU was formally organized the concern of nuclear power and weapons in Iran crystallized. By 2002 the EU had authorized the EU-3 to begin negotiating with Iran over things nuclear in Iran...Germany, France, UK.

The European Union had invited the Bush administration to be a part of the negotiations initiative, but George and his Dick Cheney said they didn't negotiate with the enemy and that they were, in fact, busily preparing to deal the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan a swift and decisive blow to subdue them then and there, once and for all, which we know was a rare form of a moonbeam thinking politely and euphemistically called neo conservatism.

When China and Russia decided in 2006 to join the EU-3, Bush and his Dick saw they'd have to participate, but the US did not really become involved until 2009 and not actively involved until 2012. So here we are.

The Iran negotiators in Switzerland agreed to only that which the Ayatollah allowed to be agreed and himself personally approved. That is what the ayatollah has before him. In this phase of the negotiations, the Ayatollah and the President of Iran have the lead role and the loudest voices, which is a part of their plan.

If Iran will not agree to return to negotiations until the P5+1 agree to discuss lifting all sanctions in one day, then we may see that develop. Then, however, after everyone has sat down again, the real final negotiations can begin, after which Iran can again claim anything to its people that it likes concerning the sanctions being lifted. In other words, the A and the P will say anything they believe they need to say to the Iranians to survive the negotiations and to get an agreement.

I believe my government and the information it has provided as to what has been negotiated....any warmonger Republican disposed to challenge me on this point is welcome to challenge me, any time in any way.

How is it possible that 192 other nations don't see it as stupid?

Please provide some proof of your repeated claim that 192 nations support Obama's deal. The General Assembly is comprised of all 193 Members of the United Nations. These aren't all voting members and there's no way to say they all approve of anything.

Have any nations (except Israel) publicly spoken out against it? Have any nations (except Israel) publicly stated that this is a "bad deal" or a "stupid deal"? Of course not.

It's only Israel and the Israel Firsters who claim it's a bad deal because they want the US to fight and finance the war only it wants.

Why has the CIA Director endorsed it?

You HAVE to kidding. The CIA Director is backing up the president? Who'd have guessed?

Sure, the Director of the CIA is just part of the conspiracy against Israel that you're always banging on about.

Anyway, back in the reality-based world, this is what Director Brennan had to say of about the people who are lying about the framework:

Washington (AFP) - CIA director John Brennan gave a staunch defense of the framework nuclear deal with Iran, calling some criticism of the accord "disingenuous" while expressing surprise at Tehran's concessions.

In his first public remarks since the outline agreement was announced last week, the spy agency chief said the deal would impose a litany of restrictions on Iran's nuclear work that had once seemed impossible to secure.

"I must tell you the individuals who say this deal provides a pathway for Iran to a bomb are being wholly disingenuous, in my view

http://news.yahoo.com/cia-chief-says-criticism-iran-deal-disingenuous-013549674.html

Bravo, Director Brennan.

I admire that he's stood by his principles and exposed these treasonous, two-faced scumbags who claim to be loyal to America. But their words and actions make it abundantly clear where their true loyalty lies.

...and if you honestly believe Iran will sign all those agreements, I have a great deal on a bridge just for you and a select few others.

You bought that bridge from George W. Bush and his Dick Cheney, we know.

So rough nuggies cause nobody's buying that same old bridge which means you're stuck with the deed.

George and his Dick are still spending the money you paid 'em.

The 'For Sale' sign is btw hanging sideways by a single nail also.

Best take it down.

Now that's rather a juvenile response...even for you.

"rough nuggies"?

this stupid "deal."

If the deal is so stupid, why is it that only one country is against it?

How is it possible that 192 other nations don't see it as stupid?

Why has the CIA Director endorsed it? Is he delusional, too?

Why have scores of internationally renowned nuclear physicists publicly stated that this is, in fact, a very good deal for the P5+1? Are these nuclear physicists stupid, too?

It's because ONLY Israel and the Israel Firsters can see the truth, right?

You've been spouting this 192 of 193 nonsense for several days now. I know where the 193 comes from but where did the 192 come from?

Nobody is buying it so how about a link?

You ask why the CIA Director agrees with the 192? He's in a politically appointed position that calls for him to favor those that put him in his position of power. He was appointed by President Barack Hussein Obama.

We've seen in the Senator Menendez indictment what happens to those that dare face up to this administration. Brennan knows which side of the bread is buttered and who pays for the butter. He's a "yes man" but is certainly no fool.

I'm sure all those scores of nuclear physicists are quite brilliant...in their field...if they exist.

By the same token, how many of these scores of nuclear physicists have an ounce of common sense? Are they also federal employees like Brennan and do they really exist at all?

Looks like another link is called for.

You really need to come up with some new positions. These are all getting rather stale.

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

I believe my government and the information it has provided as to what has been negotiated....any warmonger Republican disposed to challenge me on this point is welcome to challenge me, any time in any way.

You are free to believe anything you wish. I don't think anybody would be willing to challenge you on what you actually believe.

I would only challenge you on what has been negotiated, not what you believe has been negotiated.

So...exactly what has been negotiated and agreed to by both Iran and the P5+1?

According to up-country_sinclair in his post #78, the following is lifted from the State Departments quoted section on sanctions:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sanctions

• Iran will receive sanctions relief, if it verifiably abides by its commitments.

• U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place.

• The architecture of U.S. nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be retained for much of the duration of the deal and allow for snap-back of sanctions in the event of significant non-performance.

• All past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment, Fordow, Arak, PMD, and transparency).

• However, core provisions in the UN Security Council resolutions – those that deal with transfers of sensitive technologies and activities – will be re-established by a new UN Security Council resolution that will endorse the JCPOA and urge its full implementation. It will also create the procurement channel mentioned above, which will serve as a key transparency measure. Important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, as well as provisions that allow for related cargo inspections and asset freezes, will also be incorporated by this new resolution.

• A dispute resolution process will be specified, which enables any JCPOA participant, to seek to resolve disagreements about the performance of JCPOA commitments.

• If an issue of significant non-performance cannot be resolved through that process, then all previous UN sanctions could be re-imposed.

• U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under the deal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

However if one bothers to obtain a translation of the Iranian understanding of this so called framework, it is considerably more succinct and to the point.

Looking at a valid translation of the Iranian version, this is what is says about the sanctions:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Removal of Sanctions

According to the reached solutions, after the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action, all of the UN Security Council resolutions will be revoked, and all of the multilateral economic and financial sanctions of the EU and the unilateral ones of the US including financial, banking, insurance, investment, and all related services, including oil, gas, petrochemicals, and automobile industries will be immediately revoked. In addition, nuclear-related sanctions against real and legal individuals, entities, and public and private institutions, including the Central Bank, other financial and banking institutions, SWIFT, shipping and aviation industries of the Islamic Republic of Iran, oil tanker companies, will be immediately removed. Also, the P5+1 member countries are committed to restraining from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The two sides couldn't possibly be any further apart, particularly when you consider Iran is calling for ALL sanctions to be removed, beginning with those originally applied by Congress in 1979. The rest of State Department agreement is also in dispute by the Iranians.

Believe what you want to believe. Just don't expect very many others to fall for it.

http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/blog/translation-iranian-factsheet-nuclear-negotiations

this stupid "deal."

If the deal is so stupid, why is it that only one country is against it?

How is it possible that 192 other nations don't see it as stupid?

Why has the CIA Director endorsed it? Is he delusional, too?

Why have scores of internationally renowned nuclear physicists publicly stated that this is, in fact, a very good deal for the P5+1? Are these nuclear physicists stupid, too?

It's because ONLY Israel and the Israel Firsters can see the truth, right?

You've been spouting this 192 of 193 nonsense for several days now. I know where the 193 comes from but where did the 192 come from?

Nobody is buying it so how about a link?

You ask why the CIA Director agrees with the 192? He's in a politically appointed position that calls for him to favor those that put him in his position of power. He was appointed by President Barack Hussein Obama.

We've seen in the Senator Menendez indictment what happens to those that dare face up to this administration. Brennan knows which side of the bread is buttered and who pays for the butter. He's a "yes man" but is certainly no fool.

I'm sure all those scores of nuclear physicists are quite brilliant...in their field...if they exist.

By the same token, how many of these scores of nuclear physicists have an ounce of common sense? Are they also federal employees like Brennan and do they really exist at all?

Looks like another link is called for.

You really need to come up with some new positions. These are all getting rather stale.

1. As I've repeatedly posted, all any of the Israel Firsters here need to do is list the countries besides Israel that are opposed to the framework. So far there's been plenty of obfuscation, but no list whatsoever. It's just Israel. Not a single other country. Not one.

However, I have little doubt that Israel is bribing some S. Pacific island nation as I type this, so maybe you'll have some luck in the next few days. Vanauatu experienced a horrible hurricane a few weeks ago and the country is in shambles, so they're probably easy pickings for Israel's blood money.

2. Good grief. You think Menendez was indicted because of his position on Iran? This is completely off topic, but have you not seen the evidence against him? It's quite damning and he'll be lucky to stay out of jail. But if I remember correctly, you're also a "birther", aren't you? Just out of curiosity, are you a "9-11 truther", too?

3. Links that the scientific community and non-proliferation experts are impressed with the framework are too numerous to count.

One of the most noteworthy from earlier in the week:

http://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/press-release/The-P5%2B1-Nuclear-Agreement-With-Iran-A-Net-Plus-for-Nonproliferation

A few others:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/iran-deal-republicans-science-white-house-116853.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/iran-nuclear-experts-endorse-iran-deal-116697.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/can-the-nerd-squad-sell-the-iran-deal-116667.html

Looking at a valid translation of the Iranian version,

Do you read Farsi? What are your qualifications to determine whether or not it is a "valid translation of the Iranian version"? Be honest, you see it as a "valid translation" simply because you agree with what it says.

The threads related to Iran on this forum are chock full of thoroughly debunked, deliberate mistranslations supposedly made by Iranian leadership. And this reeks of just another example of the same.

How is it possible that 192 other nations don't see it as stupid?

Please provide some proof of your repeated claim that 192 nations support Obama's deal. The General Assembly is comprised of all 193 Members of the United Nations. These aren't all voting members and there's no way to say they all approve of anything.

Have any nations (except Israel) publicly spoken out against it?

THAT is your justification for posting lie after lie? In other words, no proof at all. You are making up these ridiculous talking points out of thin air.

The poster who keeps using Israel firsters as a talking point is no more than a PLO propagandist spewing hate.

Ain't that the truth.

Iran has made several statements to the press that they will not allow inspections, or roll back one centrifuge, or ship the uranium out of the country

The reason the other countries don't speak out is because they are preparing for war.

Same with the Pentagon.

Obama and Kerry can say what they want, we are going to war with Iran and its been planned for a long time

iSIS is part of it also as they are led by Saddam Hussein's revolutionary guards and know what they are doing

Talk about trolling, Obama is the main party driving this stupid "deal" and he has admitted that his nuclear agreement with Iran only delays Tehran from eventually acquiring a weapon. Pretending otherwise is verging on delusional.

"verging on delusional" ??

"verging..."????

You ARE one polite son of a gun, aren't you!

The poster who keeps using Israel firsters as a talking point is no more than a PLO propagandist spewing hate.

Ain't that the truth.

The chants of Death to America are remarkably easy to translate.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

That is why it is so difficult to understand how anyone would bother talking to them, which is why, I'm 100% convinced that Obama took on this headache to try and stop the Pentagon from following thru with its long term vision of the middle East which is,

US and British oil companies pumping oil from a land with no people in it

this stupid "deal."

If the deal is so stupid, why is it that only one country is against it?

How is it possible that 192 other nations don't see it as stupid?

Why has the CIA Director endorsed it? Is he delusional, too?

Why have scores of internationally renowned nuclear physicists publicly stated that this is, in fact, a very good deal for the P5+1? Are these nuclear physicists stupid, too?

It's because ONLY Israel and the Israel Firsters can see the truth, right?

You've been spouting this 192 of 193 nonsense for several days now. I know where the 193 comes from but where did the 192 come from?

Nobody is buying it so how about a link?

You ask why the CIA Director agrees with the 192? He's in a politically appointed position that calls for him to favor those that put him in his position of power. He was appointed by President Barack Hussein Obama.

We've seen in the Senator Menendez indictment what happens to those that dare face up to this administration. Brennan knows which side of the bread is buttered and who pays for the butter. He's a "yes man" but is certainly no fool.

I'm sure all those scores of nuclear physicists are quite brilliant...in their field...if they exist.

By the same token, how many of these scores of nuclear physicists have an ounce of common sense? Are they also federal employees like Brennan and do they really exist at all?

Looks like another link is called for.

You really need to come up with some new positions. These are all getting rather stale.

1. As I've repeatedly posted, all any of the Israel Firsters here need to do is list the countries besides Israel that are opposed to the framework. So far there's been plenty of obfuscation, but no list whatsoever. It's just Israel. Not a single other country. Not one.

However, I have little doubt that Israel is bribing some S. Pacific island nation as I type this, so maybe you'll have some luck in the next few days. Vanauatu experienced a horrible hurricane a few weeks ago and the country is in shambles, so they're probably easy pickings for Israel's blood money.

2. Good grief. You think Menendez was indicted because of his position on Iran? This is completely off topic, but have you not seen the evidence against him? It's quite damning and he'll be lucky to stay out of jail. But if I remember correctly, you're also a "birther", aren't you? Just out of curiosity, are you a "9-11 truther", too?

3. Links that the scientific community and non-proliferation experts are impressed with the framework are too numerous to count.

One of the most noteworthy from earlier in the week:

http://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/press-release/The-P5%2B1-Nuclear-Agreement-With-Iran-A-Net-Plus-for-Nonproliferation

A few others:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/iran-deal-republicans-science-white-house-116853.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/iran-nuclear-experts-endorse-iran-deal-116697.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/can-the-nerd-squad-sell-the-iran-deal-116667.html

1. In other words, your self proclaimed fact that 192 out of 193 countries approve the framework is simply a made up figure and has no basis in fact. That must have been a hard two paragraphs to write...thus the need to throw in some Pacific island

2. Care to point out where I said Menendez was indicted for his position on Iran. The "timing" of the indictment is and was extremely questionable when connected with his recent statements about increasing additional sanctions on Iran. The charges were made over two years ago, yet the indictment is issued during the heat of battle over Iranian sanctions? Nothing happens like that in Chicago politics unless it is planned and thought out. Now you can tell me Obama knew nothing about the indictment that his right hand man, Eric Holder, approved. Yeah...sure.

I never said he "was indicted because of his position on Iran? ". That is just another concoction running amok in your mind.

3. Suddenly your "scores of nuclear physicists" turns into a grand total of "30 nuclear nonproliferation specialists"? Of course they agree with the framework as issued by the US State Department. They are mostly US citizens and probably federal employees.

This from your first link:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Washington, D.C.)--A group of 30 leading nuclear nonproliferation specialists, primarily from the United States, issued a joint statement today assessing the framework deal announced by the P5+1 and Iran on April 2 as a "vitally important step forward" for nonproliferation and international security.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't bother with your Politico articles. I can only access 10 of their articles per month and don't want to waste them on this stuff.

No deal has been reached and, in accordance with Publicus' recent history lesson, Iran has delayed signing any nuclear agreements since 2002.

Obama getting his knickers in a twist now is hardly news worthy after 13 years of fruitless negotiations..

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

<<snip>>

I believe my government and the information it has provided as to what has been negotiated....any warmonger Republican disposed to challenge me on this point is welcome to challenge me, any time in any way.

You are free to believe anything you wish. I don't think anybody would be willing to challenge you on what you actually believe.

I would only challenge you on what has been negotiated, not what you believe has been negotiated.

So...exactly what has been negotiated and agreed to by both Iran and the P5+1?

According to up-country_sinclair in his post #78, the following is lifted from the State Departments quoted section on sanctions:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sanctions

• Iran will receive sanctions relief, if it verifiably abides by its commitments.

• U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place.

• The architecture of U.S. nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be retained for much of the duration of the deal and allow for snap-back of sanctions in the event of significant non-performance.

• All past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment, Fordow, Arak, PMD, and transparency).

• However, core provisions in the UN Security Council resolutions – those that deal with transfers of sensitive technologies and activities – will be re-established by a new UN Security Council resolution that will endorse the JCPOA and urge its full implementation. It will also create the procurement channel mentioned above, which will serve as a key transparency measure. Important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, as well as provisions that allow for related cargo inspections and asset freezes, will also be incorporated by this new resolution.

• A dispute resolution process will be specified, which enables any JCPOA participant, to seek to resolve disagreements about the performance of JCPOA commitments.

• If an issue of significant non-performance cannot be resolved through that process, then all previous UN sanctions could be re-imposed.

• U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under the deal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

However if one bothers to obtain a translation of the Iranian understanding of this so called framework, it is considerably more succinct and to the point.

Looking at a valid translation of the Iranian version, this is what is says about the sanctions:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Removal of Sanctions

According to the reached solutions, after the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action, all of the UN Security Council resolutions will be revoked, and all of the multilateral economic and financial sanctions of the EU and the unilateral ones of the US including financial, banking, insurance, investment, and all related services, including oil, gas, petrochemicals, and automobile industries will be immediately revoked. In addition, nuclear-related sanctions against real and legal individuals, entities, and public and private institutions, including the Central Bank, other financial and banking institutions, SWIFT, shipping and aviation industries of the Islamic Republic of Iran, oil tanker companies, will be immediately removed. Also, the P5+1 member countries are committed to restraining from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The two sides couldn't possibly be any further apart, particularly when you consider Iran is calling for ALL sanctions to be removed, beginning with those originally applied by Congress in 1979. The rest of State Department agreement is also in dispute by the Iranians.

Believe what you want to believe. Just don't expect very many others to fall for it.

http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/blog/translation-iranian-factsheet-nuclear-negotiations

The 47 Republican senators who wrote to the Ayatollah offered their advice and counsel, perhaps consent.

They're hollering against this too, led by Sen. Tehran Tom Cotton from down there in the Ozarks.

The Republican Party is the Party of War.

And everyone knows it.

I accept what the P5+1 say is the Framework Agreement.

The Party of War keeps supporting what the Ayatollah says.

So let's be clear about what is going on here.

The US Congress is the party of war.

FDR was a democrat, but the republicans are the party of war

LBJ was democrat. But the republican is the war monger

Here is the reality

Today's news in Iran is that the USA has threatened them with war.

The reality is, Iran is next