ISRAEL GETS BAD
MAD, the international principle of Mutual Assured Destruction protects nuclear armed nations from catastrophic destruction by nuclear warfare, because a nuclear armed adversary that makes a pre-emptive nuclear attack is assured of a devastating nuclear counter-attack. Thereby, the nuclear armed nations competing for scarce World resources are compelled to resolve their fights by diplomacy or conventional warfare, to their own benefit and the benefit of the World.
To be protected by MAD, it is imperative that the competing nuclear armed nations maintain favorable balances of nuclear weapons. The adversaries must have just enough nuclear weapons to make a nuclear war suicidal, in reality and in the wildest fantasy.
MAD creates an obsession in nations vulnerable to their nuclear armed enemies, to acquire nuclear arms for national survival, as in the case of Iran being notoriously threatened by Israel. The Israeli Judeofascist land robbers, working with their Crypto-Neo-Marxist Diaspora in the Republican and Democrat parties has acquired an arsenal of 150 or so nuclear weapons, for defense against her justifiably outraged non-nuclear Middle Eastern neighbors; instead of the nuclear armed Russian and Chinese Marxists.
Recently, in defiance of the international law against deploying nuclear weapons in warfare, Israel has been implicitly threatening to launch a nuclear strike against Iran, if she does not stop enriching uranium. If the great nuclear powers of the World tolerate such an unprecedented nuclear attack on a non-nuclear power, MAD will have failed to protect the World environment against nuclear warfare.
To insure that renegade nuclear armed nations are deterred by MAD; an amendment to international law against the deployment of nuclear weapons in warfare shall be needed. BAD, an international law of Bilateral Mutual Destruction, that imposes on every nuclear armed nation in World the civic duty to launch a surprise nuclear counter-attack on behalf of a non-nuclear power that is insanely attacked by a renegade nuclear power, would extend the deterrent power of MAD to such renegade nations.
Furthermore, BAD would reduce the future incentive for nations to develop defensive nuclear arms, by putting their survival at greater risk of bilateral retaliation, as in the case of Iran. In the case of Judeofascist Israel, the possession of an arsenal of nuclear weapons of any size has made her a certain candidate for one bang annihilation.

Did hell just freeze over?? Or is Iran much more pragmatic than our Bush Administration wants us to believe. Remember that our administration does what it wants regardless of the facts, so, don't get your hopes up!

If this is true, lets at least get the historical context right:

Starting with Tehran Declaration of 2003 and later the Paris Agrement of Nov 2004, the Iranians suspended enrichment for what was supposed to be 6 month period, awaiting an EU negotiation offer which was supposed to recognize Iran's right to nuclear technology. The had Iranians made it explicity clear from the start and obtained assurances from the EU side that the EU would NOT demand a permanent end to enrichment.

The EU proceeded to drag out the negotiations as long as they could to get the US aboard. The US criticized the whole process and torpedoed the negotiations by flatly asserting that they would not accept any enrichment in Iran at all, ever, under any conditions, not even a small-scale program.

So, the EU was stuck, because they had nothing to offer to Iran. They tried to drag out talks some more but the Iranians issued an ultimatum.

So, after 2 years, the EU finally made their long-awaited offer to Iran. The offer basically was a joke. Independent analysts characterized as an "empty box in pretty wrapping") which also included a demand that Iran permanently give up enrichment - knowing full well that the Iranians would reject such a demand. In short, it was an offer meant to be refused.

And when the Iranians did reject the EU offer as predicted and resumed enrichment after 2 years of pointless suspension, the US and EU (along with an analyst at ISIS) went on a propaganda campaign which falsely accused Iran of "violating" the Paris Agreement.

So in short, the Iranians showed flexibility and took the major step of suspending enrichment as a good faith gesture, and they were rewarded by foot-dragging, moving of goalposts and an increase in demands. The moderates who had urged Iran to show flexibility were made into fools too.

What do you suppose the lesson was for the Iranian side from this? I therefore don't think that another "6 month" suspension will result in a different outcome and the Iranians probably know this too.

Read up Trita Parsi's European Mendacity Doomed Iran Talks