Negotiating is a system of trying to strike a deal in which both sides must give in order to reach a compromise. Rarely does each side give an equal amount, one side usually comes out with a little more.

In order to keep us from going to a nuclear war I imagine the U.S. gave up a little more. But to achieve peace isn’t it worth the price for peace and good faith?

First thing on the news this morning House Republicans including Paul Ryan indicated they wanted more and would risk not giving in and going to war. Haven’t we lost enough Americans?

We are now able to have daily inspections and allowed to do selected inspections without notice. Iran is on the spot; if they now do not  adhere to the agreement then the U.N and the world will have nothing to say if the U.S. uses force and suspends sanctions.
The deal is for six months only and if Iran balks penalties for this will be severe according to U.S.. officials.

Do you think Iran would survive if they sent up a couple nukes; don’t you think they know what the consequence would be?




  1. Well, let’s just examine some of the elements of this Frank. First of all I and many others don’t believe the only options, as stated by you, are either negotiate from weakness or have nuclear war. Certainly Israel and many of the Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia don’t agree with what the U.S. has done. Negotiating with North Korea didn’t keep them from developing nuclear weapons. Also can’t accept that if we negotiate with someone on record as wanting to destroy Israel and us we can achieve “peace”.
    Whoop-tee-doo, daily inspections and selected inspections without notice. That solves all of our problems!
    I think you meant to say “enforce sanctions, not “suspend sanctions” but then again maybe you were interpreting the Obama administration correctly and when Iran defaults on the agreement our president will negotiate a new agreement and suspend more sanctions.

  2. It not really surprisingly that Israel hates any deal that diffuses tension in the region and lowers the probability of war. Nothing brings on the DC gravy boat like war. The Saudi’s got their toes stepped on when the US refused to enter the Syrian conflict. The Saudi’s have spent millions arming the Syrian rebels, doing everything they could to push Assad out, the region into war and put a new puppet government in Syria. The US stepped in and tanked the whole deal, taking just a little bit of Saudi face with it. Now, on top of that, Iran is about to hit the world market with a few million barrels of oil courtesy of a US negotiated deal. Nothing hits the old billionaire Saudi purse like fresh oil on the market.

    Funny to see Israel and the Saudi’s mentioned so often on the same side of life. Just to demonstrate how screwed up the region is, this was posted in The FT back in August during the Syrian flare up:

    Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

    Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.

    But Gulf states are pro Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!

    Iran is pro Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!

    Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!

    Gulf states are pro US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

    Welcome to the Middle East.

      • “What has been released by the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneve and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the named of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham told the Iranian press on Tuesday.

        The ink is not dry yet and Iran is already trying to undermind the agreement. Only an appreaser, Chamberlain and Carter, thinks Iran will follow the letter of this agreement. Only those who have not learned from history believe this nation of war of terror will just roll over.

    • Not sure which liberal source you are using for your “facts”, David.
      In reply I offer the following. “In the next six months, Iran’s crude oil sales cannot increase”, a fact sheet posted by the White House on the U.S. State Department’s website on Sunday (11/24/13) said. Source – Reuters
      For you, Frank and others, Is the world safer with a nuclear armed Iran than a non-nuclear Iran? Yes or no?

  3. Herman and Bob and other naysayers; have you missed the part where Iran stands to lose more if they don’t follow the agreement? It’s only for 6 months by golly, give it a chance to materialize or fail.

    • So, they will get slapped on both hands instead of just one. Where you and I fundamentally disagree is on what the Iranians are going to be doing during the next six months with respect to developing their nuclear arms.

    • Exactly what will they lose? In all the other agreements, it did not bother them to break the agreements almost immediately. I repeat, what will they lose?

      • Bob and Herman they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. But ;no matter what I write, you can’t think beyond the 6 months and the consequences if they break the treaty. I’m done, have a dinner to prepare for.

    • Republican definition of Peace. Invade countries with oil or valuable minerals; make up a reason for invasion, like weapons of mass destruction, scare hell out of Americans making them think killing our young troops is good for American because we may be invaded by several hundred foreigners with obsolete weapons. .

      • Last I checked we were still in Afghanistan, and, if memory serves me right, John Kerry spent most of August and September pleading for war in Syria. Had it not been for Putin playing the diplomatic card, the Middle East would have become yet another disaster war zone for the US.

        The red team/blue team card your playing is imaginary, sold to you by years of propaganda that your tax dollars paid to produce.

      • Thanks Bob, but you played the same card just three posts up. For most people its instinctive to pick a side, wave a flag and feel like part of a group, even when logic tells them somethings wrong. Its difficult to break the pattern when a lifetime of propaganda is telling you otherwise.

    • Iran has committed to halt enrichment above 5%:

      · Halt all enrichment above 5% and dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%.

      Iran has committed to neutralize its stockpile of near-20% uranium:

      · Dilute below 5% or convert to a form not suitable for further enrichment its entire stockpile of near-20% enriched uranium before the end of the initial phase.

      Iran has committed to halt progress on its enrichment capacity:

      · Not install additional centrifuges of any type.

      · Not install or use any next-generation centrifuges to enrich uranium.

      · Leave inoperable roughly half of installed centrifuges at Natanz and three-quarters of installed centrifuges at Fordow, so they cannot be used to enrich uranium.

      · Limit its centrifuge production to those needed to replace damaged machines, so Iran cannot use the six months to stockpile centrifuges.

      · Not construct additional enrichment facilities.

      Iran has committed to halt progress on the growth of its 3.5% stockpile:

      · Not increase its stockpile of 3.5% low enriched uranium, so that the amount is not greater at the end of the six months than it is at the beginning, and any newly enriched 3.5% enriched uranium is converted into oxide.

      Iran has committed to no further advances of its activities at Arak and to halt progress on its plutonium track. Iran has committed to:

      · Not commission the Arak reactor.

      · Not fuel the Arak reactor.

      · Halt the production of fuel for the Arak reactor.

      · No additional testing of fuel for the Arak reactor.

      · Not install any additional reactor components at Arak.

      · Not transfer fuel and heavy water to the reactor site.

      · Not construct a facility capable of reprocessing. Without reprocessing, Iran cannot separate plutonium from spent fuel.

      Unprecedented transparency and intrusive monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program

      Iran has committed to:

      · Provide daily access by IAEA inspectors at Natanz and Fordow. This daily access will permit inspectors to review surveillance camera footage to ensure comprehensive monitoring. This access will provide even greater transparency into enrichment at these sites and shorten detection time for any non-compliance.

      · Provide IAEA access to centrifuge assembly facilities.

      · Provide IAEA access to centrifuge rotor component production and storage facilities.

      · Provide IAEA access to uranium mines and mills.

      · Provide long-sought design information for the Arak reactor. This will provide critical insight into the reactor that has not previously been available.

      · Provide more frequent inspector access to the Arak reactor.

      · Provide certain key data and information called for in the Additional Protocol to Iran’s IAEA Safeguards Agreement and Modified Code 3.1.

      • Thank you David. I guess Frank is still cooking dinner. Like I wrote previously, an Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman has said that the White House statements are not true. Given their past history, I wonder how long it will be before they start breaking the rules. It will be interesting to see where we are 6 months from now.

  4. Just to clarify, I’m in no way pro-Iran (nor pro-Israel for what its worth). I don’t trust them anymore than Herman does, and I certainly don’t trust the Obama administration anymore than I trust the Iranians. My only hope in this deal is that it may, and I understand its a long shot, but it may lead to a peaceful compromise. We’ve had a boot on the throat of Iran for a decade now, with little to no real results. Maybe a new approach will help. Who knows?

    • David I don’t trust them either, however I am willing to give the new regime in Iran a chance since their new leader seems to be willing to give some. And if in 6 months this agreement doesn’t work, screw them. I don’t understand people not willing to negotiate for peace but seem hell bent on solving solutions with war and sacrificing the lives of our future generations.

      • Frank, who were you referring to with your “people not willing to negotiate for peace but seem hell bent on solving solutions with war and sacrificing the lives of our future generations.” I hope you were not referring to me because then I would have to come negotiate with you face to face!

  5. Frank, you need to change the title for this since several prominent Democratic senators, including Mendenez and Schumer, are now objecting to the administration’s negotiating plan for Iran.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s