Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday he neither backed nor rejected an interim accord with six world powers on Tehran’s disputed nuclear program but demanded all sanctions be lifted immediately once a final agreement was concluded.

He added in a televised speech that the details of the accord would be decisive, and the publication of a US fact sheet showing terms that were at variance with the Iranian view of the agreement showed “devilish” US intentions…

“The White House put out a statement just a few hours after our negotiators finished their talks…this statement, which they called a ‘fact sheet’, was wrong on most of the issues.”

. . . Earlier on Thursday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also said that any final deal with world powers must include the immediate lifting of all sanctions.

"We will not sign any deal unless all sanctions are lifted on the same day ... We want a win-win deal for all parties involved in the nuclear talks," Rouhani said.

danivon wrote:I know Americans avoid the use of proper English, but the fundamentalist religious regime of Iran is by definition "conservative" in the true meaning of the word.

bbauska wrote:Do Danivon and RickyP want the agreement signed with the stipulations reported by Khamenei and Rouhani?

Watch closely. By the time this is done, if it is done, few will believe this is a good deal.

Obama failed to get much of what he described as "non-negotiable." I guess that's because he's such a "good" negotiator.

I think it's going to be very hard for Obama to change his view at this point in the negotiation

rickyp wrote:ray

I think it's going to be very hard for Obama to change his view at this point in the negotiation

That would be because there isn't a final deal to evaluate... If facts change, perhaps his view will change.

Because he's quick to change direction when he's proven wrong or things don't go as he predicted.

rickyp wrote: Either of both of Iran's neighbors are crucial to the efficacy of any sanctions program. If they decide that the US isn't negotiating in good faith because of the interference from Congress, they might well decide to end their participation and commence trading. Particularly China.

rickyp wrote:fate

Because he's quick to change direction when he's proven wrong or things don't go as he predicted.

And this is a bad thing because intransigently pursuing the same strategy despite the changing or unexpected circumstances is wise? (That gets countries bogged down in conflicts they can't win.)

I would hope that, in the face of genuine evidence, a leader plots a new course.

Lets please remember that Germany, France, UK China and Russia all have to agree as well. The pursuit of independent action by the US Congress might well scuttle the current unity.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I know Americans avoid the use of proper English, but the fundamentalist religious regime of Iran is by definition "conservative" in the true meaning of the word.

Yes, but politically, they are being opposed by our "conservatives." That's the root of the confusion.

Our "liberals" can't wait to make a deal with one of the most radical regimes on the planet.

China and Iran are neighbors?

The only thing Congress would be doing is a favor to the Administration. He could actually leverage Congressional action in a deal with Iran to get them to comply and avoid whatever Congress does

Never mind that this, essentially, is a treaty. Obama doesn't want a piece of paper known as "The Constitution" to get in the way of his legacy

But there’s another kind of agreement beyond treaties -- indeed, they represent a growing share of agreements in recent decades. They are known as "executive agreements."
The procedure for treaties is spelled out in the Constitution, but there’s little in the Constitution about executive agreements. Their authority comes instead from longstanding practice, as well as the support of such Supreme Court cases as United States vs. Belmont (1936), United States vs. Pink (1941), and Dames and Moore vs. Regan (1981).
"Presidents since Washington have concluded such agreements, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the president has the authority to conclude such agreements," said Anthony Clark Arend, a Georgetown University professor of government and foreign service.
The upside of pursuing an executive agreement is that they are easier to negotiate -- they don’t require approval from Congress, which (as the current episode makes clear) removes a major obstacle. The downside of an executive agreement, however, is that it’s easier to reverse.
"It is clear, constitutionally, under internal law, that a future president could do this," said Jeffrey S. Peake, a Clemson University political scientist. Arend concurred that such an action would likely be constitutional

danivon wrote:Who is confused? I get it. conservatives don't like change or want to return to the past (reactionary conservatives).

Our "liberals" can't wait to make a deal with one of the most radical regimes on the planet.

Radical? I guess the revolution was a radical act, and they worked with (and then eliminated) the radical left in Iran to achieve it. But today, they are not radicals by any stretch.

Right. Just trying to change the entire Middle East by force.