UPDATE 1-U.S. says no extension for Iran nuclear talks -State Dept

[bananas]

Source: Reuters

The United States will not consider an extension to reach an agreement on curbing Iran's nuclear program, the State Department said on Wednesday, despite indications from France and Iran that talks may stretch into July.

"We're not contemplating any extension beyond June 30," State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said at a news briefing.

Rathke said the United States believes the world powers working with Tehran can achieve their goal of reaching an agreement by the self-imposed deadline.

<snip>

As talks resumed in Vienna on Wednesday to bridge gaps in negotiating positions, Iran's state TV quoted senior nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi as saying the deadline could be extended, echoing comments by France's ambassador to the United States, Gerard Araud.

<snip>

Read more: http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/05/27/mideast-crisis-usa-kerry-idINL1N0YI1KP20150527

[leveymg]

2. So, we change the terms and then expect the other side to sign within 90 days?

Sounds like a "negotiation" process that could have some unintended consequences. Maybe, not unintended.

[Adrahil]

3. What terms were changed?

Not being snarky.... I had't heard about changed terms.

[leveymg]

4. Congress will be adding a long list of poison pills suggested by AIPAC.

The measure that Obama just signed will allow the GOP-controlled Senate the ability to effectively reject the draft agreement by a veto-proof 66 votes.

If a final deal is reached, Congress will be granted at least 30 days to register approval or disapproval. During this review period, Obama would not be permitted to remove the sanctions. If Congress chooses to pass a measure rejecting the deal, Obama could veto the action, but the Senate could override a veto with 66 votes.

We know that the Senate came within 15 votes of adding a pair of poison pills to the Interim measure the President signed. These are described by CNN below:

Washington (CNN)The Senate on Thursday is continuing to debate an Iran bill after the body rejected a Republican amendment a day earlier that would have jeopardized White House support for the legislation.

The GOP addition would have required President Barack Obama to certify that Iran has not been involved in terrorism (cut off its long-standing support of Hezbollah and Hamas) as a condition for signing a nuclear agreement with that country, a high bar that could have threatened the viability of the deal with Iran that's in the works.

The amendment's defeat was a significant victory for proponents of the bipartisan bill, which would give Congress the ability to weigh in on that nuclear deal if it is reached.

They had argued the amendment was a "poison pill" because the certification requirement was unworkable and could have led the President to veto the bill.

The measure fell 15 votes shy of the 60 it needed to pass. It was the second controversial amendment to be voted down in two days, a strong sign the underlying bill is headed towards passage and a presidential signature.

Tensions rose on the Senate floor earlier when the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland -- who worked out the compromise version of the bill that Obama has agreed to approve after opposing an earlier draft -- charged that a separate amendment offered by Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was also a poison pill that would kill the bill.

At issue was a proposal from the 2016 presidential candidate to require Iran to recognize Israel's right to exist as a condition for having sanctions lifted on the Islamic state.

[karynnj]

7. all the poison pills failed

You note they failed by 15 votes. In the later vote they would ultimately need not 60, but 67.

What this means is that Obama needs 34 Senators OR one more than a third of the Congress. The latter would Be easier to get as more Congress people than that signed a letter in support of the frame work. (To over ride the president it has to be in both houses.)

Obama, not AIPAC won that fight. There is nothing likely to harm on agreement of the sort Kerry and Obama spoke of.

[leveymg]

8. The pills introduced so far were grandstanding. The changes that will be demanded later will be deal

breakers in the view of Iran, insofar as they substantially change the terms already negotiated.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and the Iranian parliament had demanded and received a second bite of the apple, we'd be saying that Iran is negotiating in bad faith and can no longer be considered a reliable partner which can be trusted to keep a deal.

Squeeze, squeeze, squeeze until all hell breaks loose.

[leveymg]

9. Note related post by meadoweiss

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/turning-israels-against?utm_source=Mondoweiss+List&utm_campaign=d714317c78-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b86bace129-d714317c78-398535353
Turning Lebanon into Gaza — Israel’s hole card against Iran deal?
By Philip Weiss
Dore Gold likens Lebanon to Gaza, and suggests Israel will have to "cut the grass" there this summer; war with Hezbollah could be Israel's hole card on the Iran deal, as US legislators are sure to side with Israel, maybe with the help of the New York Times.

[karynnj]

10. there is no later. the deal, as negotiated is what will be voted on

the consensus is that there will either not be enough votes in the Senate to reject it or that there are not enough to over ride in both houses. There is no place for amending the deal. Note also, the international sanctions and anything related to the UN is likely to happen right away.

If they can get agreement, the deal is really a fait accompli.

[leveymg]

13. That view is awfully optimistic.

I wish I could share it.

[karynnj]

14. Not quite as optimistic as it looks, but I do think it more likely than not

The BIG hurdle is getting a 6 country agreement - specifying everything. On that, things could go wrong - for millions of reasons.

However, IF that hurdle is met -- I think it is a done deal. The reason is that the international sanctions mean more than the US ones. If there is a deal - it is with every country that has a veto in the UN. The President controls our veto.

Other reasons I am optimistic, are:
1) There have been many articles in the Israeli press taking it as a given and repositioning their effort to getting "compensation" or as a former Israeli Army chief called it in an article today, preserving Israel's gap of military superiority.

2) At the time it was put out, it was clear reading between many lines that the deal was better than expected (or feared).

3) HRC, who stood on the fence, not quite backing the interim plan, Is more positive and some on her team have been emphasizing that it had some early steps when she was SoS. This is true, but others were far more behind the effort including the President who made the decision and took the risk and Secretary Kerry, who was involved even as a Senator. (Including one article that completely credited Jake Sullivan as the key person. While true that he was there for some early secret meetings - while then reporting to Biden, for the last year and a half of negotiations, he was not at the table.) He is now a key Clinton person. You know that if there are articles (as there were on Cuba) giving HRC the lion's share of credit -- assume that it is likely to go well.

[bananas]

11. The agreement is already a deal-breaker for Iran

Iran said no deal unless:
1) Sanctions removed immediately when deal signed
2) Military nuclear sites and personnel are off-limit to inspectors

[leveymg]

12. A deal is whatever both sides can agree to - the important thing, is willingness to deal

That willingness is contingent upon a perception on both sides that negotiations are preceding in good faith. Loss of trust, or a loss of a willingness to play a rational game on either side, and there is no deal. In the absence of a deal, there is only escalation to war - that's the corner we've painted for ourselves.

This whole process is apparently designed to justify war in the absence of negotiations or a settlement. It can be characterized as a dead-man's trigger. There are many in the US and in third-countries who do not want a settlement, and they will do anything possible to thwart an agreement, and would welcome seeing both sides exhaust and destroy themselves in a twilight war.

[karynnj]

6. compare the actual words of the state department and the lead paragraph

Not contemplating is not will not.

Not to mention there has been absolutely nothing that changes the terms. What everyone is doing is finalizing details left as brackets in the framework.

[quadrature]

5. PRE-BREAKING News ... Deadline extended to August 30.

Washington, DC (AP) June 29, 2015

John Kerry announces a two month extention
of talks with Iran.

www.ap.com