the time and work. This is what it means to exhaust diplomacy.
I am more hopeful than most on the board -- just because ultimately each side has a deep loss of something they really want if it fails. The US is faced with the prospect of Iran getting a nuclear bomb - which they and even more Israel view as a major threat. Though it is hard to see how this is worse than Pakistan having one -- as they do. If the negotiations end, the interim agreement ends - along with all monitoring and all reduction in their stockpiles. On Iran's side, if it ends, the sanctions stay in place.
I've noticed that Kerry's and Zarif's comments tend to mirror each other. In Iran, there are hardliners demanding more ... just as there are people in Congress demanding more than ever promised. I would wonder if Obama's comments are intended to do two things - reinforce his oft stated position that we will walk away from a bad deal and to balance the Iranian demands. I suspect the goal is to make it clear to Iran that he and the US need this less than they do. In fact, it will take political capital to get this through Congress and I don't think that it will help him politically in the US, even though the majority of Americans want a deal. Note there is no down side in Obama saying the odds are 50/50, while there is a down side to saying that he knows there will be a deal.
Someone else spoke of how Iran did not work with Carter. However, the politics are different this time. Obama is more open to this than any Presidential hopeful other than Kerry. If it fails, I doubt they can get a better deal with Clinton or any Republican -- and they have to know this. If they want the nuclear related sanctions to end and the first baby steps of rejoining the world, they need a deal.
= new reply since forum marked as read