Iran -- Deal Reached! (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

this is no different than Clinton putting the North Korea thing together, as if that worked.

for all you rah rah Obama guys singing the praises of this "deal" I'll be happy to remind you of this thread in a couple years when Iran has nukes. You people are either morons or just so blinded by partisanship you can't even admit a ####ty deal when you see it.

Clinton's agreement delayed NK's nuclear program and NK acquired nukes while Bush was President.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

 

[Homer J Simpson]

According to the deal, what is the punishment if they are found to be secretly still working on getting nukes?

I believe all the sanctions that were lifted as part of the deal would turn back on.

Seriously not trying to play gotcha here, since I don't know enough about the deal and am trying to understand it better.But what did Iran stand to lose by going along with this?

Not even tougher sanctions? Just back to where we were?

The big point would be that they wouldn't just be breaking an agreement with us, but with Russia, China, England, Germany, and France as well. Sanctions from all those countries would immediately be put back in place. With the way things are now, anyone (most likely China and Russia) could lift sanctions on their own at any time.

It's one thing to thumb their noses at us, it's quite another to give a big ol' finger to everyone else too. If that happens, there will be a lot of pissed off cats and a lot of international support if we needed to go in and blow some #### up.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

According to the deal, what is the punishment if they are found to be secretly still working on getting nukes?

I believe all the sanctions that were lifted as part of the deal would turn back on.

We can only turn our sanctions back on, which would mean very little. There is no way to walk this back.

Incorrect. All the sanctions kick back in.

 

[jamny]

According to the deal, what is the punishment if they are found to be secretly still working on getting nukes?

I believe all the sanctions that were lifted as part of the deal would turn back on.

Seriously not trying to play gotcha here, since I don't know enough about the deal and am trying to understand it better.But what did Iran stand to lose by going along with this?

Not even tougher sanctions? Just back to where we were?

The big point would be that they wouldn't just be breaking an agreement with us, but with Russia, China, England, Germany, and France as well. Sanctions from all those countries would immediately be put back in place. With the way things are now, anyone (most likely China and Russia) could lift sanctions on their own at any time.

It's one thing to thumb their noses at us, it's quite another to give a big ol' finger to everyone else too. If that happens, there will be a lot of pissed off cats and a lot of international support if we needed to go in and blow some #### up.

Do you think Russia and China would impose sanctions if it happened?

eta: or should I say, support the reintroduction of sanctions.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

According to the deal, what is the punishment if they are found to be secretly still working on getting nukes?

I believe all the sanctions that were lifted as part of the deal would turn back on.

Seriously not trying to play gotcha here, since I don't know enough about the deal and am trying to understand it better.But what did Iran stand to lose by going along with this?

Not even tougher sanctions? Just back to where we were?

The big point would be that they wouldn't just be breaking an agreement with us, but with Russia, China, England, Germany, and France as well. Sanctions from all those countries would immediately be put back in place. With the way things are now, anyone (most likely China and Russia) could lift sanctions on their own at any time.It's one thing to thumb their noses at us, it's quite another to give a big ol' finger to everyone else too. If that happens, there will be a lot of pissed off cats and a lot of international support if we needed to go in and blow some #### up.

Do you think Russia and China would impose sanctions if it happened?eta: or should I say, support the reintroduction of sanctions.

If not, they're breaking the agreement as well. Probably wouldn't go over real well.

 

[The Commish]

According to the deal, what is the punishment if they are found to be secretly still working on getting nukes?

I believe all the sanctions that were lifted as part of the deal would turn back on.

We can only turn our sanctions back on, which would mean very little. There is no way to walk this back.

Incorrect. All the sanctions kick back in.

If the other countries see fit....yeah.

 

[jamny]

According to the deal, what is the punishment if they are found to be secretly still working on getting nukes?

I believe all the sanctions that were lifted as part of the deal would turn back on.

Seriously not trying to play gotcha here, since I don't know enough about the deal and am trying to understand it better.But what did Iran stand to lose by going along with this?

Not even tougher sanctions? Just back to where we were?

The big point would be that they wouldn't just be breaking an agreement with us, but with Russia, China, England, Germany, and France as well. Sanctions from all those countries would immediately be put back in place. With the way things are now, anyone (most likely China and Russia) could lift sanctions on their own at any time.It's one thing to thumb their noses at us, it's quite another to give a big ol' finger to everyone else too. If that happens, there will be a lot of pissed off cats and a lot of international support if we needed to go in and blow some #### up.

Do you think Russia and China would impose sanctions if it happened?eta: or should I say, support the reintroduction of sanctions.

If not, they're breaking the agreement as well. Probably wouldn't go over real well.

No doubt.

I just don't understand why there aren't even tougher sanctions if they fail to comply. Each side should give and take in a negotiation and I'm not seeing what Iran has given up to get this deal done. It's a no brainer from their end.

 

[CBusAlex]

Do you think Russia and China would impose sanctions if it happened?

eta: or should I say, support the reintroduction of sanctions.

I can't think of a reason Russia and China would agree to sanctions to force Iran into a deal, then drop them after Iran breaks that deal. Why even impose sanctions in the first place?

 

[avoiding injuries]

So they keep the money regardless?

 

[cstu]

I just don't understand why there aren't even tougher sanctions if they fail to comply. Each side should give and take in a negotiation and I'm not seeing what Iran has given up to get this deal done. It's a no brainer from their end.

They want nukes now and aren't going to get them.

 

[jamny]

I just don't understand why there aren't even tougher sanctions if they fail to comply. Each side should give and take in a negotiation and I'm not seeing what Iran has given up to get this deal done. It's a no brainer from their end.

They want nukes now and aren't going to get them.

If they go against it in a couple of months, what have they lost? We wouldn't even know if they have slowed production in that time.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

According to the deal, what is the punishment if they are found to be secretly still working on getting nukes?

I believe all the sanctions that were lifted as part of the deal would turn back on.

Seriously not trying to play gotcha here, since I don't know enough about the deal and am trying to understand it better.But what did Iran stand to lose by going along with this?

Not even tougher sanctions? Just back to where we were?

The big point would be that they wouldn't just be breaking an agreement with us, but with Russia, China, England, Germany, and France as well. Sanctions from all those countries would immediately be put back in place. With the way things are now, anyone (most likely China and Russia) could lift sanctions on their own at any time.It's one thing to thumb their noses at us, it's quite another to give a big ol' finger to everyone else too. If that happens, there will be a lot of pissed off cats and a lot of international support if we needed to go in and blow some #### up.

Do you think Russia and China would impose sanctions if it happened?eta: or should I say, support the reintroduction of sanctions.

If not, they're breaking the agreement as well. Probably wouldn't go over real well.

No doubt.I just don't understand why there aren't even tougher sanctions if they fail to comply. Each side should give and take in a negotiation and I'm not seeing what Iran has given up to get this deal done. It's a no brainer from their end.

What exactly will we have given up? Enforcing sanctions gives us no benefit, and lifting them doesn't cost us anything.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I just don't understand why there aren't even tougher sanctions if they fail to comply. Each side should give and take in a negotiation and I'm not seeing what Iran has given up to get this deal done. It's a no brainer from their end.

They want nukes now and aren't going to get them.

If they go against it in a couple of months, what have they lost? We wouldn't even know if they have slowed production in that time.

They will have gained nothing and be in a much worse position internationally than they are now.

 

[jamny]

I just don't understand why there aren't even tougher sanctions if they fail to comply. Each side should give and take in a negotiation and I'm not seeing what Iran has given up to get this deal done. It's a no brainer from their end.

They want nukes now and aren't going to get them.

If they go against it in a couple of months, what have they lost? We wouldn't even know if they have slowed production in that time.

They will have gained nothing and be in a much worse position internationally than they are now.

They will have gotten $100 billion of their own money and what ever additional money they make on oil until whatever point they go back on the deal, if they do. They could deny inspectors and have a nice chunk of change for the worse position.

It would seem that much tougher sanctions might make them think twice. As is, what's the worst that can happen? Go back to where we were but they are a bit richer for the effort.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I just don't understand why there aren't even tougher sanctions if they fail to comply. Each side should give and take in a negotiation and I'm not seeing what Iran has given up to get this deal done. It's a no brainer from their end.

They want nukes now and aren't going to get them.

If they go against it in a couple of months, what have they lost? We wouldn't even know if they have slowed production in that time.

They will have gained nothing and be in a much worse position internationally than they are now.

They will have gotten $100 billion of their own money and what ever additional money they make on oil until whatever point they go back on the deal, if they do. They could deny inspectors and have a nice chunk of change for the worse position.It would seem that much tougher sanctions might make them think twice. As is, what's the worst that can happen? Go back to where we were but they are a bit richer for the effort.

If you think that's worth it to them.

 

[timschochet]

John Kerry spoke very eloquently and passionately about this deal today. He obviously sees this as his ultimate legacy in politics. He was extremely compelling. If he had spoken this well 11 years ago he might have been elected President.

 

[tommyboy]

this is no different than Clinton putting the North Korea thing together, as if that worked.

for all you rah rah Obama guys singing the praises of this "deal" I'll be happy to remind you of this thread in a couple years when Iran has nukes. You people are either morons or just so blinded by partisanship you can't even admit a ####ty deal when you see it.

Clinton's agreement delayed NK's nuclear program and NK acquired nukes while Bush was President.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

no it didn't.

of course it was going to happen under the next president. that's obvious. Iran will get nukes under a new president, doesn't mean its the new guys fault.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I just don't understand why there aren't even tougher sanctions if they fail to comply. Each side should give and take in a negotiation and I'm not seeing what Iran has given up to get this deal done. It's a no brainer from their end.

They want nukes now and aren't going to get them.

If they go against it in a couple of months, what have they lost? We wouldn't even know if they have slowed production in that time.

They will have gained nothing and be in a much worse position internationally than they are now.

They will have gotten $100 billion of their own money and what ever additional money they make on oil until whatever point they go back on the deal, if they do. They could deny inspectors and have a nice chunk of change for the worse position.

It would seem that much tougher sanctions might make them think twice. As is, what's the worst that can happen? Go back to where we were but they are a bit richer for the effort.

They would not simply be going back to where they were. Before the agreement the coalition imposing the sanctions was fraying. Some countries with strong financial motivation to work with Iran were losing patience. That's a big reason the deal happened- because the current sanctions were not going to be tenable for long.

If they go against the agreement now that won't be the case. The entire world will come down on them in a unified effort to make them pay.

 

[jamny]

I just don't understand why there aren't even tougher sanctions if they fail to comply. Each side should give and take in a negotiation and I'm not seeing what Iran has given up to get this deal done. It's a no brainer from their end.

They want nukes now and aren't going to get them.

If they go against it in a couple of months, what have they lost? We wouldn't even know if they have slowed production in that time.

They will have gained nothing and be in a much worse position internationally than they are now.

They will have gotten $100 billion of their own money and what ever additional money they make on oil until whatever point they go back on the deal, if they do. They could deny inspectors and have a nice chunk of change for the worse position.

It would seem that much tougher sanctions might make them think twice. As is, what's the worst that can happen? Go back to where we were but they are a bit richer for the effort.

They would not simply be going back to where they were. Before the agreement the coalition imposing the sanctions was fraying. Some countries with strong financial motivation to work with Iran were losing patience. That's a big reason the deal happened- because the current sanctions were not going to be tenable for long.

If they go against the agreement now that won't be the case. The entire world will come down on them in a unified effort to make them pay.

It seems naïve to believe that but I hope you're right. The entire world can't even come together to stop ISIS and you think they'll all do it to stop a country that benefits them financially?

 

[tommyboy]

I'd like to say just a word about the framework with North Korea that Ambassador Gallucci signed this morning. This is a good deal for the United States," Clinton said at the press conference.
"North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.

"South Korea, with support from Japan and other nations, will bear most of the cost of providing North Korea with fuel to make up for the nuclear energy it is losing, and they will pay for an alternative power system for North Korea that will allow them to produce electricity while making it much harder for them to produce nuclear weapons.

"The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments. Only as it does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations."

Bill Clinton

 

[TobiasFunke]

I just don't understand why there aren't even tougher sanctions if they fail to comply. Each side should give and take in a negotiation and I'm not seeing what Iran has given up to get this deal done. It's a no brainer from their end.

They want nukes now and aren't going to get them.

If they go against it in a couple of months, what have they lost? We wouldn't even know if they have slowed production in that time.

They will have gained nothing and be in a much worse position internationally than they are now.

They will have gotten $100 billion of their own money and what ever additional money they make on oil until whatever point they go back on the deal, if they do. They could deny inspectors and have a nice chunk of change for the worse position.

It would seem that much tougher sanctions might make them think twice. As is, what's the worst that can happen? Go back to where we were but they are a bit richer for the effort.

They would not simply be going back to where they were. Before the agreement the coalition imposing the sanctions was fraying. Some countries with strong financial motivation to work with Iran were losing patience. That's a big reason the deal happened- because the current sanctions were not going to be tenable for long.

If they go against the agreement now that won't be the case. The entire world will come down on them in a unified effort to make them pay.

It seems naïve to believe that but I hope you're right. The entire world can't even come together to stop ISIS and you think they'll all do it to stop a country that benefits them financially?

If all it took to stop ISIS was severe sanctions the world would definitely come together to do it.

 

[higgins]

this is no different than Clinton putting the North Korea thing together, as if that worked.

for all you rah rah Obama guys singing the praises of this "deal" I'll be happy to remind you of this thread in a couple years when Iran has nukes. You people are either morons or just so blinded by partisanship you can't even admit a ####ty deal when you see it.

Hey, a##clown, maybe you should listen to your own party before believing it's a bad deal.

 

[tommyboy]

this is no different than Clinton putting the North Korea thing together, as if that worked.

for all you rah rah Obama guys singing the praises of this "deal" I'll be happy to remind you of this thread in a couple years when Iran has nukes. You people are either morons or just so blinded by partisanship you can't even admit a ####ty deal when you see it.

Hey, a##clown, maybe you should listen to your own party before believing it's a bad deal.

this is illuminating to me, apparently you believe that your party should determine your politics, like a hive-mind.

sorry chach, thats not how it works.

 

[higgins]

this is no different than Clinton putting the North Korea thing together, as if that worked.

for all you rah rah Obama guys singing the praises of this "deal" I'll be happy to remind you of this thread in a couple years when Iran has nukes. You people are either morons or just so blinded by partisanship you can't even admit a ####ty deal when you see it.

Hey, a##clown, maybe you should listen to your own party before believing it's a bad deal.

this is illuminating to me, apparently you believe that your party should determine your politics, like a hive-mind.

sorry chach, thats not how it works.

Not party affiliated, chach -- I go whichever way makes the most sense for national security. You?

 

[tommyboy]

this is no different than Clinton putting the North Korea thing together, as if that worked.

for all you rah rah Obama guys singing the praises of this "deal" I'll be happy to remind you of this thread in a couple years when Iran has nukes. You people are either morons or just so blinded by partisanship you can't even admit a ####ty deal when you see it.

Hey, a##clown, maybe you should listen to your own party before believing it's a bad deal.

this is illuminating to me, apparently you believe that your party should determine your politics, like a hive-mind.

sorry chach, thats not how it works.

Not party affiliated, chach -- I go whichever way makes the most sense for national security. You?

if you can read, you already know my opinion. nice talk

 

[Homer J Simpson]

North Korea got nukes, therefore this deal with a different country 20 years later has no chance of working.

--tommyboy

 

[MaxThreshold]

I just think it's fair that if the US has nukes then everyone should have nukes. Looks like Obama shares my sentiment. Nukes for all!

 

[tommyboy]

yeah, just like that. i'll be sure to bump this thread in a couple yrs when the Ayatollah rolls the nukes down main street. don't say you weren't warned

 

[Homer J Simpson]

So what do you guys think would prevent them from acquiring nukes without this deal?

And without a deal, what's to prevent Russia and China from ending sanctions, putting Iran in an even stronger position?

 

[Hang 10]

So what do you guys think would prevent them from acquiring nukes without this deal?

And without a deal, what's to prevent Russia and China from ending sanctions, putting Iran in an even stronger position?

The threat of getting bombed.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

So what do you guys think would prevent them from acquiring nukes without this deal?

And without a deal, what's to prevent Russia and China from ending sanctions, putting Iran in an even stronger position?

The threat of getting bombed.

Oh yeah that always works.

 

[Hang 10]

So what do you guys think would prevent them from acquiring nukes without this deal?

And without a deal, what's to prevent Russia and China from ending sanctions, putting Iran in an even stronger position?

The threat of getting bombed.

Are we giving up our bombers with this deal!?!?!

I think this president has made it quite clear he's not going to do ####.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

So what do you guys think would prevent them from acquiring nukes without this deal?

And without a deal, what's to prevent Russia and China from ending sanctions, putting Iran in an even stronger position?

The threat of getting bombed.

Are we giving up our bombers with this deal!?!?!

I think this president has made it quite clear he's not going to do ####.

Your deep foreign policy analysis has changed my mind. Bomb Iran!!!

 

[Hang 10]

So what do you guys think would prevent them from acquiring nukes without this deal?

And without a deal, what's to prevent Russia and China from ending sanctions, putting Iran in an even stronger position?

The threat of getting bombed.

Are we giving up our bombers with this deal!?!?!

I think this president has made it quite clear he's not going to do ####.

Your deep foreign policy analysis has changed my mind. Bomb Iran!!!

Right back atcha.

 

[cstu]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

 

[Hang 10]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

Obama has said it's this deal or war. What's the next president supposed to do if Iran violates the deal?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

Obama has said it's this deal or war. What's the next president supposed to do if Iran violates the deal?

Isn't that your plan for right now?

 

[cstu]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

Obama has said it's this deal or war. What's the next president supposed to do if Iran violates the deal?

Sure, if that happens war is inevitable regardless of the President. It just seems people are too eager to reject this deal knowing that doing so means some sort of military action.

 

[tommyboy]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

Obama has said it's this deal or war. What's the next president supposed to do if Iran violates the deal?

Sure, if that happens war is inevitable regardless of the President. It just seems people are too eager to reject this deal knowing that doing so means some sort of military action.

Thats a hobsons choice floated by the admin, they dont mention option 3, increase the sanctions which briught iran to the table in the first place

 

[Hang 10]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

Obama has said it's this deal or war. What's the next president supposed to do if Iran violates the deal?

Isn't that your plan for right now?

My plan was not to give their economy a massive boast on the basis of a false hope.

 

[cstu]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

Obama has said it's this deal or war. What's the next president supposed to do if Iran violates the deal?

Sure, if that happens war is inevitable regardless of the President. It just seems people are too eager to reject this deal knowing that doing so means some sort of military action.

Thats a hobsons choice floated by the admin, they dont mention option 3, increase the sanctions which briught iran to the table in the first place

Sanctions are no good long-term - keep them up and there's no reason for Iran not to rush production of nukes.

 

[tommyboy]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

Obama has said it's this deal or war. What's the next president supposed to do if Iran violates the deal?

Sure, if that happens war is inevitable regardless of the President. It just seems people are too eager to reject this deal knowing that doing so means some sort of military action.

Thats a hobsons choice floated by the admin, they dont mention option 3, increase the sanctions which briught iran to the table in the first place

Sanctions are no good long-term - keep them up and there's no reason for Iran not to rush production of nukes.

I disagree. The production of nukes requires a lot of money and resources. Now this deal gives them the money, which will increase the pace of nuke building

 

[Hang 10]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

Obama has said it's this deal or war. What's the next president supposed to do if Iran violates the deal?

Isn't that your plan for right now?

My plan was not to give their economy a massive boast on the basis of a false hope.

What was your plan after the sanctions expired, they started getting a slight boost to their economy, and cranked up their nuke factories?

Keep our own sanctions in place and lobby the international community to do the same. Also keep the military option on the table.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

Obama has said it's this deal or war. What's the next president supposed to do if Iran violates the deal?

Sure, if that happens war is inevitable regardless of the President. It just seems people are too eager to reject this deal knowing that doing so means some sort of military action.

Thats a hobsons choice floated by the admin, they dont mention option 3, increase the sanctions which briught iran to the table in the first place

Sanctions are no good long-term - keep them up and there's no reason for Iran not to rush production of nukes.

I disagree. The production of nukes requires a lot of money and resources. Now this deal gives them the money, which will increase the pace of nuke building

Except pretty much every nuclear weapons expert agrees that can't happen with the way inspections will be set up.

 

[tommyboy]

This is interesting

http://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/irans-nuclear-timetable

 

[tommyboy]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

Obama has said it's this deal or war. What's the next president supposed to do if Iran violates the deal?

Sure, if that happens war is inevitable regardless of the President. It just seems people are too eager to reject this deal knowing that doing so means some sort of military action.

Thats a hobsons choice floated by the admin, they dont mention option 3, increase the sanctions which briught iran to the table in the first place

Sanctions are no good long-term - keep them up and there's no reason for Iran not to rush production of nukes.

I disagree. The production of nukes requires a lot of money and resources. Now this deal gives them the money, which will increase the pace of nuke building

Except pretty much every nuclear weapons expert agrees that can't happen with the way inspections will be set up.

Not when iran gets to inspect itself http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-secret-self-inspections-1440026399 and have two wks or more advance notice http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421166/iran-nuclear-deal-resist-inspection

 

[Rove!]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

Obama has said it's this deal or war. What's the next president supposed to do if Iran violates the deal?

Sure, if that happens war is inevitable regardless of the President. It just seems people are too eager to reject this deal knowing that doing so means some sort of military action.

So what about when Iraq repeatedly violated their deal?

 

[Rove!]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

Obama has said it's this deal or war. What's the next president supposed to do if Iran violates the deal?

Sure, if that happens war is inevitable regardless of the President. It just seems people are too eager to reject this deal knowing that doing so means some sort of military action.

Thats a hobsons choice floated by the admin, they dont mention option 3, increase the sanctions which briught iran to the table in the first place

Sanctions are no good long-term - keep them up and there's no reason for Iran not to rush production of nukes.

Spoken like a true neocon

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

Obama has said it's this deal or war. What's the next president supposed to do if Iran violates the deal?

Sure, if that happens war is inevitable regardless of the President. It just seems people are too eager to reject this deal knowing that doing so means some sort of military action.

Thats a hobsons choice floated by the admin, they dont mention option 3, increase the sanctions which briught iran to the table in the first place

Sanctions are no good long-term - keep them up and there's no reason for Iran not to rush production of nukes.

I disagree. The production of nukes requires a lot of money and resources. Now this deal gives them the money, which will increase the pace of nuke building

Except pretty much every nuclear weapons expert agrees that can't happen with the way inspections will be set up.

Not when iran gets to inspect itself http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-secret-self-inspections-1440026399 and have two wks or more advance notice http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421166/iran-nuclear-deal-resist-inspection

The Parchin thing seems more about Iran covering their asses over past nuclear research than anything else. And the IAEA will oversee all the data collection there anyway.

Not an ideal situation, for sure, but nowhere close to a deal breaker IMO.

 

[bear]

Maybe the next Republican President can get us into a war.

Obama has said it's this deal or war. What's the next president supposed to do if Iran violates the deal?

Sure, if that happens war is inevitable regardless of the President. It just seems people are too eager to reject this deal knowing that doing so means some sort of military action.

Thats a hobsons choice floated by the admin, they dont mention option 3, increase the sanctions which briught iran to the table in the first place

There is no option 3. There is no increasing sanctions. The sanctions were originally put in place to entice Iran to the negotiating table regarding their nuclear programs and they worked for that. That is what the other members of the 5+1 originally agreed to and that is it. Once Iran came to the negotiating table in good faith (and the only people claiming otherwise is Israel and the loon right wingers in this country) the sanctions by the rest of the world were going to end. This idea that a better agreement can be forced on Iran is truly stupid.