Both sides will make concessions, that is the way these things work.

Who says? If they don't make concessions there will be no deal. We ask for more than we expect to get and they will ask for more than they expect to get. It's how negotiations work.

They have no delivery system, just like Korea, and no real capability to develop them, despite their rhetoric. Both nuclear weapons and ICBM's are frightfully expensive, of limited use in warfare, and Iran really cannot afford them.

You must realize that these things are bargaining chips. Without them they have nothing. They will concede them grudgingly, as we will concede sanctions grudgingly. Don't underestimate just how badly Iran needs to get out from under sanctions.The government will not long survive if they don't. Don't assume that this agreement will be the last one. In ten years Iran may be a much more amenable place once the population starts getting the benefits from reduced sanctions. They will not want them reimposed. Give them a taste of western economic and social advantages and it is hard to give up. Economic relief buys them a lot more than a weapon or two, which only buys them more sanctions and a possible attack from Israel if Yahu gets re-elected.

Were asking them to give up a great degree of sovereignty, control of their own infrastructure, a nuclear deterrent that we enjoy, and influence outside of Iran. They want us to get out of the Persian Gulf. That is not even on the table.

Who has ever stolen a nuclear weapon? It just doesn't happen, despite fears. Who has ever given one away? We haven't even given one to the British or the French. It just doesn't happen. Russia has had attempts made to steal some fissionable material, but not a weapon. They are too expensive and dangerous to be unsecured by anybody.

Not only are Iranians adamantly opposed to Sunni radicals and islamists, with whom they are also at war, but they are not foolish enough to give anybody a weapon with their return address on it. Unlike everyone else who owns a nuclear weapon, we have actually used one and have the means to deliver them, unlike Pakistan or Korea . . . or Iran for that matter. These Persians are not suicidal, like the Sunni Arab radicals.

Not without severe consequences. They will lose a shooting war with the United States. They will lose an economic war with the United States (they have already had a big taste of this and they hate it). They will lose a cyber war with us (they have already experienced this in the Stuxnet attack). They will lose a nuclear war with Israel. They realize all of this. We can impose a total blockade and bankrupt them if we wish and there is not a damn thing they can do about it. We have invaded and occupied the countries on both sides of them and stayed as long as we wanted to. Our Navy dominates the Persian Gulf to the South of them. We defeated the former Superpower to their north with an economic war. This has not been lost upon them. It freaks them out, in fact.

They have a lot more to lose than we do. We have little to lose at all versus the Iranians. In a strange way this ridiculous Cotton letter puts as much pressure on Iran as it does America. It's kind of a good cop/bad cop situation. If they don't strike a deal with Obama, they may be dealing with some seriously crazy fuckers down the road. John Kerry is probably already reminding them of that.

Their main rationale for possessing a nuclear weapon is not to use it but to have deterrence against nuclear neighbors Pakistan and Israel (who has already destroyed Syrian and Iraqi nuclear reactors), not to threaten the United States or Europe. Israel and Pakistan both developed nuclear weapons against the wishes of the United States and they can defend themselves just fine. We don't have to do it for them. They left the umbrella.

No, no, no, no, no! You have it exactly backwards like this rookie senator, who should know better. The President has the exclusive authority to negotiate agreements and treaties and that is what is happening. Once an agreement or treaty is agreed upon between the relevant foreign parties. THEN (and only then) must he present it to Congress for ratification. No country can negotiate with 535 politicians, the very idea is absurd. The reason that the Constitution was drawn up that way was to prevent exactly these kind of domestic political shenanigans from derailing the nation's diplomatic efforts.

Don't forget that this is also not the Congress officially interfering with the foreign policy. It is a political party interfering with foreign policy. Something the Constitution forbids and the Logan Act makes a crime.

Why, thank you.

Opinions differ. Congress has no legislative duty whatsoever to conduct foreign policy, especially attempting to derail ongoing negotiations. They get to ratify treaties and declare wars. The Constitution is very clear on this. So is the Logan Act

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
​

Clearly Congressmen are not exempt. Clearly correspondence was carried on. Clearly intent to influence the conduct of a foreign government was committed. Clearly an attempt to defeat the measure of the United states was commenced.

Neither the Logan Act nor the Constitution prohibit Congressmen from visiting a foreign country and foreign leaders. It happens all the time. Nor are Congressmen prohibited from annoying the President.

Jesse Jackson got a US pilot released. Did he try to defeat the measures of the United States? Nope.

And must I point out that what Reagan "was doing" in Nicaragua was illegal and 11 administration officials were indicted and convicted. Kerry and another senator traveled to Nicaragua on official business and spoke with people on both sides of the conflict to conduct an investigation into the situation--an investigation that exposed Oliver North and the Iran Contra Scandal for breaking US law, covertly trading 2,512 TOW missiles with the enemy, and illegally transferring government money to a foreign element that had been specifically prohibited by Congress.

Pelosi was accompanied at the Syria meeting by a Republican congressman and Bush State Department officials. She informed the White House and State Department of her trip, and foreign policy experts said that her visit didn't stray from a "typical" congressional visit. Three Republican congressmen also met with Assad prior to her visit.

Tell me, did Pelosi or Kerry correspond with a foreign government with intent to defeat the measures of the United States? Nope. Can you produce those documents? Nope. Were there ongoing negotiations with the governments of those countries that they tried to defeat? Nope.

So, are you defending this Cotton weasel and his letter or just objecting to the Constitution and the Logan Act?