Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Iran deal deadline to be extended… again?

Iran deal deadline to be extended… again?

“The sanctions are going to come, and they’re going to come quick.”

The arbitrary deadline to come to an agreement with Iran is today.

But according to the Associated Press, that deadline might be extended to tomorrow, making this the third deadline extension.

They had set a deadline of Tuesday for a framework agreement, and later softened that wording to a framework understanding, between Iran and the so-called P5+1 nations — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China.

After intense negotiations, obstacles remained on uranium enrichment, where stockpiles of enriched uranium should be stored, limits on Iran’s nuclear research and development and the timing and scope of sanctions relief among other issues.

The aim has been a joint statement is to be accompanied by additional documents that outline more detailed understandings, allowing the sides to claim enough progress has been made to merit a new round, officials said. Iran has not yet signed off on the documents, one official said, meaning any understanding remains unclear.

…The softening of the language from a framework “agreement” to a framework “understanding” appeared due in part to opposition to a two-stage agreement from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Earlier this year, he demanded only one deal that nails down specifics and does not permit the other side to “make things difficult” by giving it wiggle room on interpretations.

Any deal reached would only amount to a soft framework, and likely not be particularized in writing as we reported Friday.

In the absence of a written agreement, the Senate will have nothing to debate, despite longstanding bipartisan support.

Speaker Boehner indicated Saturday that pending the terms of Iran deal (if one is reached), Congress intends to move forward with sanctions.

Fox News reported:

House Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday he has “serious doubts” on whether the Obama administration and five other world powers can reach an agreement with Iran to curtail that country’s nuclear program and that Congress will move to impose new sanctions on Tehran if no deal is reached.

“Let’s wait and see if there’s an agreement,” the Ohio Republican told CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I have got serious doubts. I had serious doubts over the last year whether there could be an agreement, and I still have serious doubts.”

Boehner suggested the major obstacle is that Iranian leaders cannot be trusted.

“We have got a regime that’s never quite kept their word about anything,” he said. “I just don’t understand why we would sign an agreement with a group of people who, in my opinion, have no intention of keeping their word.”

…Boehner said Congress would move “very quickly” to impose sanctions if the deal falls apart and argued that the United States should never have agreed to loosen existing sanctions because they are what brought Iran to the negotiating table.

“We should have kept the sanctions in place, so that we could have gotten to a real agreement,” he said. “The sanctions are going to come, and they’re going to come quick.”

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

[Featured Image a Screen Grab]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:
,

Comments

Negotiation 101…

walk. Away.

Start planing bomb missions.

Watch how that changes things.

    Bingo. It’s the absolute best negotiating advice I’ve ever been given. “Don’t be afraid to walk away.”

    It’s a fantastically effective tactic on used car salesmen; they don’t want to drop price and lower their commission, but they want even less to see their entire commission literally walk out the door.

    The last thing Tehran wants is to leave the militarily-enforceable status quo in place. The U.S. and U.N. P5+1 powers could have them over the proverbial barrel, if they’d only exercise the power.

    I can only think of three reasons the Administration is giving Tehran everything it wants — in no particular order: sheer incompetence, enemy sympathizing, or blackmail (i.e. Tehran has something on the negotiators or Administration) — but I can’t determine which is at play, or which is scariest.

      Ragspierre in reply to Archer. | March 31, 2015 at 4:00 pm

      …and innit funny that the Iranians seem to understand this truism VERY well…

      http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/31/with-nuclear-negotiations-set-to-extend-past-deadline-iran-provokes-u-s-naval-assets/

      Fine. Walk away. Alert the fleet, and start your bombing campaign planning. Let it leak.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Archer. | March 31, 2015 at 4:05 pm

      I can only think of three reasons the Administration is giving Tehran everything it wants

      Actually it isn’t, because Teheran seems to keep wanting more.

      I would vote for incompetence in negotiating, because Obama thinks these negotiations are TOO BIG TO FAIL. So he keeps on giving in a little bot more, being held back mostly by France.

      I think the reason he’s so afraid of it failing is bad intelligence, probably brought to you by the same people who said the attack in Benghazi was unplanned and spontaneous.

      The bad intelligence might be one or more of the following things:

      1) A military attack would fail (which it might if the idea was to do everything all in one blow, and never repeat it.)

      2) Iran intends to ramp up uranium enrichment if the deal fails.

      3) Iran would start a war if the deal fails, like Japan did in 1941 when they couldn’t get rid of sanctions. And while it wouldn’t win, it would be terribly bloody, and U.S. soldiers would be involved too.

      4) Iran is undecided as to what to do, and if they give it a little bit more time, the “moderates” might win the day.

      5) Ali Khamenei will die soon of prostate cancer, and it will all be over. And he certainly won’t live 10 more years will his full strength, and once he is gone, Iran is no more problem.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | March 31, 2015 at 4:38 pm

        “Ali Khamenei will die soon of prostate cancer, and it will all be over. And he certainly won’t live 10 more years will his full strength, and once he is gone, Iran is no more problem.”

        LOL.

        Hey Barry?!!?

          Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | March 31, 2015 at 4:51 pm

          How’d that work out with all the previous “Supreme Leaders”…???

          What an idiot.

          With respect to the both of you, the five numbered statements were given as examples of “bad intelligence”, i.e. they are all false, but seem to be the “facts” upon which the Administration is basing their negotiations.

          GIGO – Garbage In, Garbage Out.

          Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | March 31, 2015 at 6:55 pm

          Yep. You right. My bad. I have come to just skim Sammy’s clouds of “stuff”, so I missed the context.

          Sammy’s an Obama shill of course. Nothing he says is true, ever.

          Ayatollah dying of prostrate cancer? Maybe he decides to use the nukes on his way out. if not there is always another fruitcake to take his place.

          Late, Henry, but better than never…

        Tehran is wanting more because the U.S. is willing to give it to them. The sharks have smelled the blood in the water and are circling.

        I don’t believe the explanation for the Benghazi attack was based on bad intelligence; I believe it was a pack of LIES. ALL of it. The Administration knew that it wasn’t based on outrage over a YouTube video, that it wasn’t spontaneous and/or random, that the American embassy was targeted, and that the staff there did not have sufficient arms or support. The Administration knew all this, because months before the “protest”, the embassy staff warned them that hostilities were increasing and requested extra security — a request that was denied by the (Clinton-run) State Department.

        As far as the Iran negotiations, I’ll concede that bad intelligence is a possible fourth explanation. Nice catch!

      Barry in reply to Archer. | March 31, 2015 at 8:52 pm

      “I can only think of three reasons the Administration is giving Tehran everything it wants — in no particular order: sheer incompetence, enemy sympathizing, or blackmail (i.e. Tehran has something on the negotiators or Administration) — but I can’t determine which is at play, or which is scariest.”

      There IS a fourth reason – Obambi is on their side. That explains his entire foreign policy and is the logical conclusion. Obambi wants the Iranians to have “the bomb” and be free of sanctions at the same time.

The problem here is passionless, uncharismatic, timid and untelegenic Boehner, who, with the Senate Turtle, is the pathetic face of the GOP. Barely any voter even knows who the this guy is. If they do, he’s the corrupt insider personified somewhat correctly by the equally corrupt democRat media. So cowardly is Boehner, that he literally must be forced out from the shadows once every year or two to take a ‘strong’ position (like with Bibi addressing Congress – definitely not his idea), after which he runs like a rabbit back in, leaving the nation exposed a fascist movement whose elements are literally racing across it.

In the face of Boehner’s cowardice and surrender to a malignant clown calling himself ‘Barack Hussein Obama,
Boehner’s threats for sanctions against Iran will be meaningless, because Obama is Iran and Boehner has surrendered to Obama.

Right now, all eyes are on Muppet John Kerry. They should be on ourselves, the GOP base, for being such incredible fools by tolerating this situation since 2010.

What Kerry needs to do is to bring Cat Stevens with him to the negotiations.

Henry Hawkins | March 31, 2015 at 3:21 pm

“Any deal reached would only amount to a soft framework, and likely not be particularized in writing as we reported Friday.”

That was the plan all along, that a working general agreement (aka soft framework) was due today, while the fully detailed final agreement is due in June.

Of course, all deadlines are unenforceable and meaningless.

This deal will drag out until the media and public forget about it, at which point they’ll let it die. Bet the farm that big time pressure is coming from within the Democrat ranks to not make stupid or dangerous agreements in advance of the 2016 elections (or any election when the deal is this bad and impossible to politically defend).

DINORightMarie | March 31, 2015 at 3:30 pm

Totally off topic but related to the post:

Please turn OFF the auto-play on the AP video imbed. Every time I click on this site it plays……..

Thanks.

Sammy Finkelman | March 31, 2015 at 4:09 pm

Also, maybe – they can’t fight Iran and ISIS at the same time.

    Maybe you’re an idiot.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Barry. | April 3, 2015 at 10:10 am

      That comment was supposed to be attached to one above, where I discuss possible bad intelligence (or analysis) the Administration is relying on.

      I didn’t intend for that comment to be an orphan.

      I didn’t mean that it is actually true that they can’t fight Iran and ISIS at the same time.

      I mean the Administrations thinks so, or at least that is a scenario they do not wish to contemplate.

      .

Uncle Samuel | March 31, 2015 at 4:42 pm

What does Iran want?

Iran wants Israel gone/disappeared/destroyed:
http://therightscoop.com/iranian-basij-leader-destroying-israel-is-nonnegotiable/

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend