U.N. head: Timing key to Iran nuclear deal

It was supposed to be a final proposal with Iran saying "yes" on or before October 23. Anything else was to have been considered "no." Yet here it is two weeks later and Iran has given a "preliminary response" with all kinds of demands and comments.

There should be nothing left to discuss. Iran has refused to agree so the sanctions should be imposed immediately. But that won't happen.

it shows that we still have alot to offer those fortunate enough to get to u.s. negotiation table

looks like they accepted IAEA's terms and they will speak to UN's 5 concerned nations (includes u.s.) about their aims of building bigger and better power plants in Iran

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/29/ira...

c'mon!!! do we think we can keep second largest oil exporter in stone age??

yep

This whole thing is soooooo transparent. The US is pussyfooting around in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not commiting the real number of troops to get the job done and get out. Meanwhile Iran which is geographically sandwiched between Iraq and Afghanistan is developing nuclear weapons.

OBVIOUSLY, because of eroding "world opinion" about US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with eroding support from home, the US and (the world) needs another "slap in the face". So why not put just a smaller number of our soldiers in harms way. let Iran complete their nuclear short range capability, nuke our troops, and get the whole world in an uproar, and renewed support for the US going in and taking out Iran.

It is after all a tactically sound methodology. After all it worked so well with Pearl Harbor..........

xyk5 wrote:

c'mon!!! do we think we can keep second largest oil exporter in stone age??

Of course not. The second largest oil exporter has great need of nuclear power, they can't get their energy from any other source..........