"Iran regional super power". Is that a April fool . Israel is the regional superpower. Period.
"Iran a partner in solving regional problems another April fool"---- Iran is creating regional problems. Period.
Informative video no its a April fool, a licking Iranian ass interview. A absolute shocker, absolute bullshit.
More Good News:
[h=1]Iran nuclear negotiators reach 'broad framework of understanding'[/h] British foreign secretary Philip Hammond says detailed and technical are still to be resolved but that he is optimistic further progress will be made
Julian Borger in Lausanne
Wednesday 1 April 2015 04.33 EDT Last modified on Wednesday 1 April 2015 04.36 EDT
Britain’s foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, said on Wednesday that negotiators at Iran nuclear talks in Switzerland had reached “a broad framework of understanding”, but that details still had to be agreed.
Hammond was speaking after the negotiations missed a midnight deadline to produce a preliminary accord on the main issues in dispute in Iran’s nuclear programme. After breaking off in the early hours of the morning, talks among foreign ministers and senior diplomats are due to resume this morning.
“I think we have a broad framework of understanding but there are still some key issues that have to be worked through,” the foreign secretary told a group of British broadcasters. “Some of them are quite detailed and technical so there is still quite a lot of work to do, but we are on it now and we’ll keep going at it.”
He added: “We have made significant progress over the last few days but it has been slow going. We decided to break last night because some of the staff had been working through the previous night. We wanted people to be fresh as we tackle the last few isssues that remain.
“We are now working on them this morning . I’m optimistic that we will make further progress this morning, but it does mean the Iranians being willing to meet us where there are still issues to deal with. Fingers crossed and we’ll hope to get there during the course of the day.”
Over the course of the night, three of the seven foreign ministers at the talks – Wang Yi of China, Sergei Lavrov of Russia, and Laurent Fabius of France left the talks to fly back to their capitals, leaving senior diplomats to lead their delegations. Hammond, the US secretary of state, John Kerry, the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, his German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier and the EU foreign policy chief, Frederica Mogherini, stayed behind for a seventh day of talks in the Swiss lakeside town.
US diplomats had earlier denied the agreement had been finalised, saying there were still issues to resolve. In a sign, however, that the talks could be approaching a critical moment, Barack Obama held a video-conference on Tuesday night with his national security team to be briefed on developments by the US negotiators: Kerry and the energy secretary, Ernest Moniz.
The talks went past a midnight deadline but appeared to have gathered momentum as they approached the cutoff point.
The Chinese foreign minister, Wang Li, said in statement on Wednesday there had been “significant progress in core issues” and the positions of all parties involved in the talks had become closer.
“One can say with relative certainty that we at the minister level have reached an agreement in principle on all key aspects of the final settlement of this issue,” Russian media quoted the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, as saying.
After a marathon 17-hour day of talks, ministers from seven nations adjourned just after the midnight deadline and agreed to reconvene at 9am Lausanne time.
Speaking to reporters after midnight, Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, said: “It has been a very long day for all delegations. We have accomplished quite a bit but people needed to get some rest and start over early in the morning.
“I hope that we can finalise the work on Wednesday and hopefully start the process of drafting tomorrow.”
Hammond said the negotiators would not be rushed into making a shoddy compromise.
“We have said throughout that we won’t do a bad deal,” he said. “We have to cross all the t’s and dot all the i’s, and by working through this in a methodical way we’ll make sure if we get the deal done it is a deal that is good for us, good for Iran, good for the world, and ensures peace in the region in the future.”
[h=1]Iran nuclear negotiators reach 'broad framework of understanding'[/h] British foreign secretary Philip Hammond says detailed and technical are still to be resolved but that he is optimistic further progress will be made
Julian Borger in Lausanne
Wednesday 1 April 2015 04.33 EDT Last modified on Wednesday 1 April 2015 04.36 EDT
Britain’s foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, said on Wednesday that negotiators at Iran nuclear talks in Switzerland had reached “a broad framework of understanding”, but that details still had to be agreed.
Hammond was speaking after the negotiations missed a midnight deadline to produce a preliminary accord on the main issues in dispute in Iran’s nuclear programme. After breaking off in the early hours of the morning, talks among foreign ministers and senior diplomats are due to resume this morning.
“I think we have a broad framework of understanding but there are still some key issues that have to be worked through,” the foreign secretary told a group of British broadcasters. “Some of them are quite detailed and technical so there is still quite a lot of work to do, but we are on it now and we’ll keep going at it.”
He added: “We have made significant progress over the last few days but it has been slow going. We decided to break last night because some of the staff had been working through the previous night. We wanted people to be fresh as we tackle the last few isssues that remain.
“We are now working on them this morning . I’m optimistic that we will make further progress this morning, but it does mean the Iranians being willing to meet us where there are still issues to deal with. Fingers crossed and we’ll hope to get there during the course of the day.”
Over the course of the night, three of the seven foreign ministers at the talks – Wang Yi of China, Sergei Lavrov of Russia, and Laurent Fabius of France left the talks to fly back to their capitals, leaving senior diplomats to lead their delegations. Hammond, the US secretary of state, John Kerry, the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, his German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier and the EU foreign policy chief, Frederica Mogherini, stayed behind for a seventh day of talks in the Swiss lakeside town.
US diplomats had earlier denied the agreement had been finalised, saying there were still issues to resolve. In a sign, however, that the talks could be approaching a critical moment, Barack Obama held a video-conference on Tuesday night with his national security team to be briefed on developments by the US negotiators: Kerry and the energy secretary, Ernest Moniz.
The talks went past a midnight deadline but appeared to have gathered momentum as they approached the cutoff point.
The Chinese foreign minister, Wang Li, said in statement on Wednesday there had been “significant progress in core issues” and the positions of all parties involved in the talks had become closer.
“One can say with relative certainty that we at the minister level have reached an agreement in principle on all key aspects of the final settlement of this issue,” Russian media quoted the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, as saying.
After a marathon 17-hour day of talks, ministers from seven nations adjourned just after the midnight deadline and agreed to reconvene at 9am Lausanne time.
Speaking to reporters after midnight, Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, said: “It has been a very long day for all delegations. We have accomplished quite a bit but people needed to get some rest and start over early in the morning.
“I hope that we can finalise the work on Wednesday and hopefully start the process of drafting tomorrow.”
Hammond said the negotiators would not be rushed into making a shoddy compromise.
“We have said throughout that we won’t do a bad deal,” he said. “We have to cross all the t’s and dot all the i’s, and by working through this in a methodical way we’ll make sure if we get the deal done it is a deal that is good for us, good for Iran, good for the world, and ensures peace in the region in the future.”
Netanyahu: Nuke deal gives ‘Iran’s murderous regime a clear path to the bomb'
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...ns-murderous-regime-a-clear-path-to-the-bomb/
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...ns-murderous-regime-a-clear-path-to-the-bomb/
What happened to the "this needs to be complete by March 31st or else" deadline the Stuttering Clusterfuck imposed?
Remember that one?
How many more times will this get pushed off into the future before you consider it "bad news"? Let me guess...when the next R admin is in charge so you can blame them?
http://qz.com/374516/on-sanctions-relief-russia-and-china-are-on-irans-side/
[h=1]On sanctions relief, Russia and China are on Iran’s side[/h]
um, well there's a surprise...
'Iran and the outside world still can’t quite see eye to eye, right?
Right, but that is not the only big problem. It turns out one of the main hitches in the talks is the outside world itself, the so-called P5+1. A red line for the US-led side is robust retention of sanctions to ensure Iranian compliance over the period of the deal. This includes a so-called “snap-back” provision, proposed by the US and France, of harsh sanctions should Iran cheat.
Iran’s negotiating team, however, has demanded that all oil and financial sanctions be lifted simultaneously and immediately, with no snap-back.
This position has attracted some advocates on the P5+1 side. Though ostensibly allied with the US, France, Germany and the UK in the talks, Russia and China are siding with Iran on the issue of the snap-backs. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has publicly said that all the sanctions must be dropped immediately.'
[h=1]On sanctions relief, Russia and China are on Iran’s side[/h]
um, well there's a surprise...
'Iran and the outside world still can’t quite see eye to eye, right?
Right, but that is not the only big problem. It turns out one of the main hitches in the talks is the outside world itself, the so-called P5+1. A red line for the US-led side is robust retention of sanctions to ensure Iranian compliance over the period of the deal. This includes a so-called “snap-back” provision, proposed by the US and France, of harsh sanctions should Iran cheat.
Iran’s negotiating team, however, has demanded that all oil and financial sanctions be lifted simultaneously and immediately, with no snap-back.
This position has attracted some advocates on the P5+1 side. Though ostensibly allied with the US, France, Germany and the UK in the talks, Russia and China are siding with Iran on the issue of the snap-backs. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has publicly said that all the sanctions must be dropped immediately.'
Etiquette Versus Annihilation
By Thomas Sowell
Recent statements from United Nations officials, that Iran is already blocking their existing efforts to keep track of what is going on in their nuclear program, should tell anyone who does not already know it that any agreement with Iran will be utterly worthless in practice. It doesn't matter what the terms of the agreement are, if Iran can cheat.
It is amazing — indeed, staggering — that so few Americans are talking about what it would mean for the world's biggest sponsor of international terrorism, Iran, to have nuclear bombs, and to be developing intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond the Middle East.
Back during the years of the nuclear stand-off between the Soviet Union and the United States, contemplating what a nuclear war would be like was called "thinking the unthinkable."
But surely the Nazi Holocaust during World War II should tell us that what is beyond the imagination of decent people is by no means impossible for people who, as Churchill warned of Hitler before the war, had "currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them."
Have we not already seen that kind of hatred in the Middle East? Have we not seen it in suicide bombings there and in suicide attacks against America by people willing to sacrifice their own lives by flying planes into massive buildings, to vent their unbridled hatred?
The Soviet Union was never suicidal, so the fact that we could annihilate their cities if they attacked ours was a sufficient deterrent to a nuclear attack from them. But will that deter fanatics with an apocalyptic vision? Should we bet the lives of millions of Americans on our ability to deter nuclear war with Iran?
It is now nearly 70 years since nuclear bombs were used in war. Long periods of safety in that respect have apparently led many to feel as if the danger is not real. But the dangers are even greater now and the nuclear bombs more devastating.
Clearing the way for Iran to get nuclear bombs may — probably will — be the most catastrophic decision in human history. And it can certainly change human history, irrevocably, for the worse.
Against that grim background, it is almost incomprehensible how some people can be preoccupied with the question whether having Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu address Congress, warning against the proposed agreement, without the prior approval of President Obama, was a breach of protocol.
Against the background of the Obama administration's negotiating what can turn out to be the most catastrophic international agreement in the nation's history, to complain about protocol is to put questions of etiquette above questions of annihilation.
Why is Barack Obama so anxious to have an international agreement that will have no legal standing under the Constitution just two years from now, since it will be just a presidential agreement, rather than a treaty requiring the "advice and consent" of the Senate?
There are at least two reasons. One reason is that such an agreement will serve as a fig leaf to cover his failure to do anything that has any serious chance of stopping Iran from going nuclear. Such an agreement will protect Obama politically, despite however much it exposes the American people to unprecedented dangers.
The other reason is that, by going to the United Nations for its blessing on his agreement with Iran, he can get a bigger fig leaf to cover his complicity in the nuclear arming of America's most dangerous enemy. In Obama's vision, as a citizen of the world, there may be no reason why Iran should not have nuclear weapons when other nations have them.
Politically, President Obama could not just come right out and say such a thing. But he can get the same end result by pretending to have ended the dangers by reaching an agreement with Iran. There have long been people in the Western democracies who hail every international agreement that claims to reduce the dangers of war.
The road to World War II was strewn with arms control agreements on paper that aggressor nations ignored in practice. But those agreements lulled the democracies into a false sense of security that led them to cut back on military spending while their enemies were building up the military forces to attack them.
Recent statements from United Nations officials, that Iran is already blocking their existing efforts to keep track of what is going on in their nuclear program, should tell anyone who does not already know it that any agreement with Iran will be utterly worthless in practice. It doesn't matter what the terms of the agreement are, if Iran can cheat.
It is amazing — indeed, staggering — that so few Americans are talking about what it would mean for the world's biggest sponsor of international terrorism, Iran, to have nuclear bombs, and to be developing intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond the Middle East.
Back during the years of the nuclear stand-off between the Soviet Union and the United States, contemplating what a nuclear war would be like was called "thinking the unthinkable."
But surely the Nazi Holocaust during World War II should tell us that what is beyond the imagination of decent people is by no means impossible for people who, as Churchill warned of Hitler before the war, had "currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them."
Have we not already seen that kind of hatred in the Middle East? Have we not seen it in suicide bombings there and in suicide attacks against America by people willing to sacrifice their own lives by flying planes into massive buildings, to vent their unbridled hatred?
The Soviet Union was never suicidal, so the fact that we could annihilate their cities if they attacked ours was a sufficient deterrent to a nuclear attack from them. But will that deter fanatics with an apocalyptic vision? Should we bet the lives of millions of Americans on our ability to deter nuclear war with Iran?
It is now nearly 70 years since nuclear bombs were used in war. Long periods of safety in that respect have apparently led many to feel as if the danger is not real. But the dangers are even greater now and the nuclear bombs more devastating.
Clearing the way for Iran to get nuclear bombs may — probably will — be the most catastrophic decision in human history. And it can certainly change human history, irrevocably, for the worse.
Against that grim background, it is almost incomprehensible how some people can be preoccupied with the question whether having Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu address Congress, warning against the proposed agreement, without the prior approval of President Obama, was a breach of protocol.
Against the background of the Obama administration's negotiating what can turn out to be the most catastrophic international agreement in the nation's history, to complain about protocol is to put questions of etiquette above questions of annihilation.
Why is Barack Obama so anxious to have an international agreement that will have no legal standing under the Constitution just two years from now, since it will be just a presidential agreement, rather than a treaty requiring the "advice and consent" of the Senate?
There are at least two reasons. One reason is that such an agreement will serve as a fig leaf to cover his failure to do anything that has any serious chance of stopping Iran from going nuclear. Such an agreement will protect Obama politically, despite however much it exposes the American people to unprecedented dangers.
The other reason is that, by going to the United Nations for its blessing on his agreement with Iran, he can get a bigger fig leaf to cover his complicity in the nuclear arming of America's most dangerous enemy. In Obama's vision, as a citizen of the world, there may be no reason why Iran should not have nuclear weapons when other nations have them.
Politically, President Obama could not just come right out and say such a thing. But he can get the same end result by pretending to have ended the dangers by reaching an agreement with Iran. There have long been people in the Western democracies who hail every international agreement that claims to reduce the dangers of war.
The road to World War II was strewn with arms control agreements on paper that aggressor nations ignored in practice. But those agreements lulled the democracies into a false sense of security that led them to cut back on military spending while their enemies were building up the military forces to attack them.
Yep, not only believe it, we know it. Since the formal talks have started in 2013, and sanctions have been eased, their Nuke Bomb developing has been frozen. How do we know. Because we were told they were less than a year away from Nukes then, by such "reputable" sources as Bibi
. Talks have been going on for more than a year, no bomb, and inspectors have verified what I've said. http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ayes/hayes-iran-cheated-interim-nuclear-deal/Hopefully a full agreement is reached, but as long as they're talking, there is hope.
