Iran talks push past deadline

Overtime. I didn't know they could do overtime.

Keep talking and let's see what deal we can come up with.

Nuclear readiness is a necessity for religious autocracy of Shiites Iran. The IAEA did not offer the guarantee to verify the secret nuclear program regardless the outcome of negotiation. Iran has been dumping its nose over U.N's resolutions and sponsor terrorism worldwide. Cotton is correct in dealing with the Mullahs from strength and not just about scoring political rhetoric as Obama and John Kerry are dancing with wolves.

The IAEA did not offer the guarantee to verify the secret nuclear program regardless the outcome of negotiation.

What secret nuclear program?

Nuclear readiness? They clearly stated they do not want nuclear weapons, and there is no evidence they are trying to make them.

The U.S. says any final deal will accomplish a goal of stretching the time Iran would need to make a nuclear weapon from several months to a year. But Netanyahu said Washington initially promised “years” to a breakout time.

Why do people continue to listen to this clown? He's got "secret" nuclear weapons, may of them. He continues to thumb his nose to the IAEA and UN resolutions.

@JJSullivan Surprise, surprise, the Putin-phile thinks Iran is being persecuted. Russia should have been banned from these talks because they are probably busy supplying the reactors and Uranium as always.

What secret nuclear program?

Because Iran is not allowing any inspections of the majority of their sites or very limited access to the sites they allow only. But Obama and Kerry just want to make ANY deal and in exchange, get nothing from Iran.

Nuclear readiness? They clearly stated they do not want nuclear weapons, and there is no evidence they are trying to make them.

If you believe that, then we might as well have Mickey Mouse running the country. They don't have to say it, I will go with 36 years of the Iranians lying on everything, but Obama the almighty can make them honest. Mark my words, this will backfire so badly! Even Carter as bad as he was wouldn't have gone this far to make a deal without any concessions.

Why do people continue to listen to this clown?

If people didn't like listening to him, he would have never been reelected.

He's got "secret" nuclear weapons, may of them. He continues to thumb his nose to the IAEA and UN resolutions.

In a nutshell.

Nuclear readiness? They clearly stated they do not want nuclear weapons, and there is no evidence they are trying to make them.

If you believe that...

Their statements are supported by leaked documents from American and Israeli Intelligence. So the accusations from the Israeli regime are just lies.

Because Iran is not allowing any inspections of the majority of their sites or very limited access to the sites they allow only.

They allow inspections of nuclear sites. Inspectors do not have the right to go anywhere they like at any time, the NPT has clear guidelines for inspections. And considering IAEA has a history of being infiltrated by spies (Iraq inspections), I don't blame Iran for blocking inspections of sites the IAEA has no business inspecting.

Their statements are supported by leaked documents from American and Israeli Intelligence. So the accusations from the Israeli regime are just lies.

And where are these documents? Did you see them? Are they verifiable?

They allow inspections of nuclear sites. Inspectors do not have the right to go anywhere they like at any time, the NPT has clear guidelines for inspections.

I see, so if Iran won't allow the inspectors to go to certain potential development sites and the Iranians declare there is nothing at that site we should just take their word, because of course, there is absolutely NO reason for the Iranians to lie, right?

And considering IAEA has a history of being infiltrated by spies (Iraq inspections), I don't blame Iran for blocking inspections of sites the IAEA has no business inspecting.

ROFL, He, if you want to believe that junk, go ahead. By the way, do you know what "Taqiya" is? Try looking it up. Good Luck.

Probably inspection conditions and the fate of Iran's enriched uranium are the sticking points. My guess is that Iran will fold: perhaps a face-saving prior announcement for inspections, but their current enriched uranium will have to go to Russia for processing for use as nuclear fuel. Obama won't back down on that point.

By the time Iran signs the birds will be away heading for USA and then it all matters no longer for Obama.

"The U.S. and its negotiating partners demand curbs on Iranian nuclear activities that could be used to make weapons, and they say any agreement must extend the time Tehran would need to produce a weapon from the present several months to at least a year. "

Well, heck, all Tehran has to do is agree to extend the time it needs to produce a weapon to a year! What's the hold-up on the deal, then? lol

Well, heck, all Tehran has to do is agree to extend the time it needs to produce a weapon to a year! What's the hold-up on the deal, then? lol

I suspect the real hold-up has nothing to do with what is written in the article. The idea of extending the time needed to produce a weapon is just an excuse for interfering with Iran's legitimate nuclear program.

I see, so if Iran won't allow the inspectors to go to certain potential development sites...

Are you suggesting that Iran is required to make EVERYTHING publicly available? They are entitled to keep certain things secret, for security and economical reasons. Again, the NPT does contain certain guidelines for the inspections; an inspector cannot just go anywhere he/she likes, there are certain limits and there are certain procedures that must be followed.

bass -- please for one moment put all your FOX News rhetoric aside and tell me how what Obama is doing with respect to Iran is in any way fundamentally different that what Reagan did with Russia and the original START treaty? I mean if it was OK for the guy who many conservatives worship at the altar of, and give credit to for "bringing down the Iron Curtain", how come it isn't with Obama?

@JJSullivan Only Putin would consider Iran to have the right to a bomb and not just energy, but then I suppose that is just typical Russian barbarism. Maybe the Chechen rebels should have a nuclear bomb.

Iran is a difficult issue, prevent today, or next year, Iran will eventually have nuclear material. They do need the energy and they are not considered "Western Friendly". It is evident they DO want a powerful military in the region as we've seen the last couple decades. With that power they have not been aggressive overtly. Would Iran nuke Israel? I doubt it. They risk enilation if ever they made such a mistake. Israel would come down on them relentleesly not to mention the Semitic powers throughout the world.

Are you suggesting that Iran is required to make EVERYTHING publicly available?

Yes! That is EXACTLY what I am saying!

They are entitled to keep certain things secret, for security and economical reasons.

Yes, and we are entitled not to trust them, even more so. You just made my argument for me, after 36 years of hostility, there is NO reason to trust ANYTHING they say, in fact, we should be as cautious and scrutinize EVER word and action to the detail.

Again, the NPT does contain certain guidelines for the inspections; an inspector cannot just go anywhere he/she likes, there are certain limits and there are certain procedures that must be followed.

Then there should be NO unconditional deal and the President and Kerry are the absolute idiotic, mindless people on the planet for even attempting to do this just for a glorified photo op and for their own historical legacy gains. Absolutely disgraceful!

please for one moment put all your FOX News rhetoric aside and tell me how what Obama is doing with respect to Iran is in any way fundamentally different that what Reagan did with Russia and the original START treaty?

For one, Reagan was smart, the second, Reagan was dealing with a country that wasn't a religious theocracy hell bent on a prophecy that All the Jews and infidels will be slaughtered and to fulfill that prophecy certain actions need to be implemented. Having this bomb is part of that.

I mean if it was OK for the guy who many conservatives worship at the altar of, and give credit to for "bringing down the Iron Curtain", how come it isn't with Obama?

The Russians didn't want to die and did value life. The Iranians or rather the Mullahs and Ayatollah believe in Martyrdom and Sharia, big, big difference. They welcome death, expect it for the apocalyptic war. Again, I am all for normalizing relations with the Iranians, I grew up with many in L.A., the people are not and NEVER were the problem. it's the crazy religious mullahs and their proxies throughout the ME that are destroying and bringing misery to that country and as long as they remain in power, nothing will ever change.

Only Putin would consider Iran to have the right to a bomb and not just energy, but then I suppose that is just typical Russian barbarism.

There is no bomb. No evidence of trying to make one. If you are so concerned with nuclear bombs and barbarism, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Are you suggesting that Iran is required to make EVERYTHING publicly available?

Yes! That is EXACTLY what I am saying!

Then you are being ... unreasonable. No other country is subjected to that much scrutiny. Just shows they have other motives to go after Iran.

after 36 years of hostility, there is NO reason to trust ANYTHING they say,

What hostility? Iran hasn't initiated a war of conquest in over 200 years.

What hostility? Iran hasn't initiated a war of conquest in over 200 years.

I think he's speaking of the fact that many Iranians profess to hate the US. Which if course is ridiculous, but that won't stop him.

There is no bomb................ until there is one.

How many people predicted Pakistan?

There is no bomb. No evidence of trying to make one. If you are so concerned with nuclear bombs and barbarism, you are barking up the wrong tree.

There is NO bomb? How can you say that for sure?! IS that verifiable? Oh, I forgot, they won't allow any inspectors in unconditionally to find out. I guess there is NO way to prove if they do or don't.

Then you are being ... unreasonable. No other country is subjected to that much scrutiny. Just shows they have other motives to go after Iran.

Other motives???? Apparently, you haven't been reading the news for the last 36 years on Iran. You might want to catch up a bit.

What hostility? Iran hasn't initiated a war of conquest in over 200 years.

So what was that in the 80's with Saddam? A game of Hide and seek? And who backs Hezbollah and Hamas financially? Please elaborate.

I think he's speaking of the fact that many Iranians profess to hate the US. Which if course is ridiculous, but that won't stop him.

And there are many, many that love the US to death. Like I said, the problem is NOT Iran and most that I have met even in Japan were so very, very nice and never hostile towards me or griped about the US, but when talking about the Mullahs, now that's an entirely different story.

http://iranian.com/main/blog/shorts/iranian-population-us-cities.html

Other motives???? Apparently, you haven't been reading the news for the last 36 years on Iran. You might want to catch up a bit.

Why does everyone only go back to 1979? How about 1953, with the US-sponsored overthrow of a democratically elected leader.

There is NO bomb? How can you say that for sure?! IS that verifiable?

Yes, it is verifiable. All nuclear sites are monitored and nuclear material is not being diverted elsewhere. They are intentionally provoking the Iranians by insisting on inspecting sites they have no business in.

And there are many, many that love the US to death. Like I said, the problem is NOT Iran and most that I have met even in Japan were so very, very nice and never hostile towards me or griped about the US, but when talking about the Mullahs, now that's an entirely different story.

Indeed, most Americans are fine, the problem is their leaders, who get their marching orders from...