Nuclear Deal in the works.

[Ahriman238]

GENEVA — In the strongest sign yet that the first phase of a nuclear deal with Iran may be near, Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Geneva on Friday, joining three of his international counterparts who also arrived unexpectedly: British Foreign Secretary William Hague, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle.

After his arrival, Kerry cautioned that "there is not an agreement at this point in time."

"I want to emphasize there are still some very important issues on the table that are unresolved. It is important for those to be properly, thoroughly addressed," he said. "We hope to try to narrow those differences, but I don't think anybody should mistake that there are some important gaps that have to be closed."

The sudden arrival of so many of the world's top officials sparked a high level of anticipation in Geneva, with increased security, including bomb-sniffing dogs, and an influx of the world's media.

The dignitaries are all expected to meet with Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. While the State Department says Kerry came to Geneva "in an effort to help narrow the differences in negotiations," it appears an initial agreement is virtually a done deal.

Negotiators worked late into the night Thursday night, in advance of Kerry's arrival. And both a senior U.S. official and Iran's foreign minister have said a deal could be signed Friday.

To be clear, this would only be the first step of a comprehensive nuclear deal still to be hammered out.

It would be significant, however. While full details aren't yet known, a senior U.S. official said the deal would reign in advancements in Iran's nuclear program in return for a "limited" and "reversible" easing of economic sanctions.

Zarif told NBC News there will be political fallout in both Iran and the U.S., if this first step is indeed signed in the coming hours.

Already Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has warned for years that Iran is close to having a bomb, is alarmed enough to call the deal being negotiated here "a historic mistake."

On Friday, he released this video expressing his strong feelings against the deal:

"Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and the security of its people," Netanyahu told reporters after meeting with Kerry in Jerusalem.

Israel, which accuses Tehran of seeking to build atomic weapons, has repeatedly warned it might strike Iran if it doesn't halt its Iran hopes to get a break at the talks from crippling international sanctions that have caused its economy to collapse. The U.S. has said world powers will consider relaxing some sanctions if Iran takes visible steps to limit its nuclear program.

Israel has called for the sanctions to stay until Iran has dismantled its entire uranium enrichment program.

"I understand that the Iranians are walking around very satisfied in Geneva — as well they should be, because they got everything and paid nothing," Netanyahu said, Reuters reported.

President Obama said sanctions, which have been imposed since 2006, could be slightly eased in the early stages of negotiating a broad deal.

"There is the possibility of a phased agreement in which the first phase would be us ... halting any advances on their nuclear program ... and putting in place a way where we can provide them some very modest relief, but keeping the sanctions architecture in place," he said in an interview with NBC News' Chuck Todd.

Kerry flew to Geneva hours after meeting with Netanyahu. In Geneva, Iran and six world powers will hold negotiations: the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — the U.S., Russia, China, France and Britain — plus Germany.

From Israel, Kerry said Washington would not make a "bad deal, that leaves any of our friends or ourselves exposed to a nuclear weapons program," according to Reuters.

So nothings signed yt, and if it were this would only be a baby step. Still, it looks like we're going to make that baby step and actually override the wishs of Israel for a change. I'm very cautiously optimistic.

[Borgholio]

My two main thoughts.

1. I'd be very concerned about Israel doing something unilateral and stupid, which would derail the whole thing. An airstrike for instance, would immediately justify to Iran the need for the bomb since "The Americans sweet-talked us into lowering our guard and let their client state Israel attack us.

2. Assuming this goes through, can it be safe to assume that the sanctions finally brought Iran to the breaking point?

[Ahriman238]

Looks like the talks yesterday didn't go anywhere. Kerry would like to reassure us that there's no great hurry and "no deal is better than a bad deal."

[Mr. Coffee]

It was a discussion about their nuclear program. Given how well that's gone over in the past did anyone honestly think this talk would be any different? Really?

[Mr Bean]

It was a discussion about their nuclear program. Given how well that's gone over in the past did anyone honestly think this talk would be any different? Really?

It has before in the past, we've just not been willing to accept the offered deal. In Clinton first term it was supposedly offered up if we killed the blockade and stop acting like Iran was still a key Soviet ally. Post 9/11 Iran came forward an offered it as a hedge to Bush because of the at the time large world sympathy with America over the attacks. Bush turned him down for various reasons the primary one was claimed that we did not trust them, the one rumored is they were seen as Iraq part II (This being prior to the start of the Iraq war but mid buildup to it).

We could have the nuclear program ended if we wanted, the only question is if we are willing to pay Iran's price. As the year goes by the demands change and decrease/increase depending on who sits in the white house and holds the senate.

*Edit III
It's been believed (And I hold that view myself) that Iran began it's efforts to enter the Nuclear club in both the belief that long term Iranian stability and security required nuclear arms to fend off the west. And that such a program would make an excellent bargaining chip with those same governments.

[Mr. Coffee]

It was a discussion about their nuclear program. Given how well that's gone over in the past did anyone honestly think this talk would be any different? Really?

It has before in the past, we've just not been willing to accept the offered deal. In Clinton first term it was supposedly offered up if we killed the blockade and stop acting like Iran was still a key Soviet ally. Post 9/11 Iran came forward an offered it as a hedge to Bush because of the at the time large world sympathy with America over the attacks. Bush turned him down for various reasons the primary one was claimed that we did not trust them, the one rumored is they were seen as Iraq part II (This being prior to the start of the Iraq war but mid buildup to it).

We could have the nuclear program ended if we wanted, the only question is if we are willing to pay Iran's price. As the year goes by the demands change and decrease/increase depending on who sits in the white house and holds the senate.

*Edit III
It's been believed (And I hold that view myself) that Iran began it's efforts to enter the Nuclear club in both the belief that long term Iranian stability and security required nuclear arms to fend off the west. And that such a program would make an excellent bargaining chip with those same governments.

Edit for normal folk: Iran has said "we want to deal" umptieen-billion and a half times now. Every single fucking time they've made sure the talks go no where.

Let the fucking Israelis have them.

[K. A. Pital]

Why do people object to Iran having nukes? Clearly they are way more stable than Pakistan; but Pakistan has nukes. It is also true that America, Britain and the entire NATO allowed Pakistan to get them.

Reap what you sow.

[Irbis]

Edit for normal folk: Iran has said "we want to deal" umptieen-billion and a half times now. Every single fucking time they've made sure the talks go no where.

Let the fucking Israelis have them.

Dubya Bush is Iranian now?

Also, in case you didn't noticed, not only Obama is more reasonable, they have new president, too, elected on much more conciliatory platform than last guy.

So, yeah, dumb, jingoistic crap over diplomacy is totally justified here, and Israeli no talks warmongering position is totally justified despite about 0% chance of Iran threatening them, am I right?

[Mr. Coffee]

Also, in case you didn't noticed, not only Obama is more reasonable, they have new president, too, elected on much more conciliatory platform than last guy.

The new Iranian President talks a good game, but as we can see from this latest round of "talks"...

Here's the new president, same as the old president.

Seriously, US-Iran relations have been like this for over three fucking decades now. At this point I'll be surprised if diplomacy ever works between us in my lifetime, guy.