Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal - the Real Question is 'What Deal'?

Since Thursday we have been bombarded by politicians and analysts giving their opinions about the Iran nuclear deal. Our response to all their rhetoric ought to be -- What Deal?? ~~~~~ American officials have admitted that they didn't inform the Iranians in advance of all the “parameters” President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry would make public in an effort to lock in progress made so far, and, more importantly, to strengthen the White House against any move by Congress to impose more sanctions against Iran. A senior Obama administration official, who spoke on condition of not being named, told reporters : "We talked to them [the Iranian delegation] and told them that we would have to say some things. We didn’t show them the paper. We didn’t show them the whole list." The official said it was "understood that we had different narratives, but we wouldn’t contradict each other." It seems that Obama and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif - even as they were telling the world a deal had been struck - were agreeing to disageee. ~~~~~ But, no sooner were the negotiations over on Thursday, than Zarif started his own "spin" on the deal with a Twitter post of a message that labelled the five-page set of American parameters as US "spin." On Iranian state television Saturday, Zarif continued that messsage, saying that Iran had formally complained to Secretary Kerry that the measures listed in the American statement were "in contradiction" to what had actually been accepted in Lausanne. He complained that the paper had been drawn up under Israeli and congressional pressure, and he restated Iran’s position that fast sanction relief had been required by Iran, including the need to "terminate," not just suspend, European Union sanctions. The Obama administration response? Another unnamed administration official said : "We fully expected them to emphasize things that are helpful in terms of selling this at home. We believe that everything in our document will not need to be renegotiated." So, Obama says he has a deal no matter what the Iranians say. ~~~~~ But with three months of negotiations over the drafting of the real Iranian nuclear deal still ahead, some experts wonder whether the lack of an agreed-upon, detailed public list of decisions taken in Lausanne may let the Iranians re-negotiate all key points, because of the critical differences in the US and Iranian versions of what was agreed to in Lausanne. ~~~~~ First, we heard the 291-word English statement from the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. This was followed by the "same" statement in Farsi by Zarif -- not simultaneously translated into English because there was according to Zarif no one present but himself who could do that, so the TV world audience should trust him. He then read the official Iranian text of 512 words. Another text issued by the French contained 231 words. The longest elaboration came from Kerry, whose text contained 1,318 words and created the impression that there was a done deal. But, the texts differ not only in length. They are often clearly contradictory about what was agreed. The Mogherini and French texts are so vague as to be meaningless. And, according to linguistics experts cited by the New York Times, the Zarif Farsi text carefully avoids words that might give the impression that anything has been agreed by the Iranian side or that Iran has offered any concessions. Further, the Iranian text is labelled as a press statement. The American text, however, is titled “Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” and claims that key points have been "decided," with only "implementation details" remaining to be worked out. What are the key differences? ~~~~~ The Iranian text begins by insisting that it has absolutely no "legal aspect" and is intended only as "a guideline for drafting future accords." The American text claims that Iran has agreed to do certain things, for example reducing the number of centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,500. The Iranian text, however, says that Iran "shall be able to..." do such a thing as reduce the number of centrifuges. ~~~~~ The same is true about enrichment in Fordo. The American statement says that Iran has agreed to stop enrichment at Fordo for 15 years. The Iranian text, however, refers to this as something that Iran "will be able to do," if it so wished. ~~~~~ Sometimes the two texts are in clear disagreement. The American statement claims that Iran has agreed not to use advanced centrifuges, each of which could do the work of 10 old ones. The Iranian text, however, insists that "on the basis of solutions found, work on advanced centrifuges shall continue on the basis of a 10-year plan." ~~~~~ The American statement claims that Iran has agreed to dismantle the core of the heavy water plutonium plant in Arak. The Iranian text says the plant will remain and be updated and modernized. ~~~~~ Since Thursday, Kerry and Obama and their supporters have insisted that the Iranian nuclear project and its military-industrial components would be put under a kind of international supervision for 10, 15 or 25 years. However, the Farsi and French texts contain no such timelines. And, in fact, even in the Obama and Kerry statements, there is no mention of the former Iranian defense development of nuclear fissile materials in sites that Iran has never allowed to be inspected and is not obliged to do under this deal. ~~~~~ The US statement talks of sanctions "relief" while Iran says the sanctions would be "immediately terminated." The American text claims Teheran has agreed to take measures to reassure the international community on military aspects of its nuclear project, a vague reference to Iran’s development, with help from North Korea, of missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads. There is absolutely no word about that in the Iranian and other non-American texts. ~~~~~ In his aggressive celebration in the Rose Garden Thursday, Obama tried to sell Congress and all Americans a fake deal. He made three obviously wrong claims. First, Obama said that when he became President Iran had “thousands of centrifuges” which would now be cut down to around 6,000. In fact, in 2008, Iran had only 800 centrifuges. Iran speeded up its nuclear program after Obama became President. Second, Obama claimed that thanks to the scheme he is pushling "all of Iran’s paths" to developing a nuclear arsenal would be blocked. But, at the same time, he admitted that even if the deal is fully implemented, Iran would still be able to build a bomb in a year, presumably leap-frogging what Obama called “blocked paths.” Obama’s most egregious claim was that the only alternative to his attempt to surrender to the terrorist Iran regime would be US involvement in "another ground war in the Middle East." He ignored the fact that forcing Iran by means of diplomatic action, sanctions and pressures to abide by six UN resolutions could also be an alternative. ~~~~~ Dear readers, the Thursday and post-Lausanne statements by both Iran and the US also make no mention of restraining Iran's ballistic missile program aimed at Europe and the US, or the issue of Russia delivering S-300 missile defense systems to Iran, which remains a topic for bilateral discussions that have missed deadline after deadline. And, Israel, which has courageously rallied world opposition to the Obama Iran deal, has raised other critical but unaddressed issues that could have been, and may still be, forced from Iran in exchange for its release from crippling sanctions -- Iranian aggression in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Gaza and Lebanon; elimination of its ballistic missile capability and program; Iranian export of terror against Jews around the world; and Iran's continuing official goal of "anihillating Israel." Obama is playing a bizarre game that will endanger regional and world peace and threaten the national security of the US and its allies. He seems willing to say anything to prevent Congress from enacting stricter sanctions. He also obviously wants to humiliate Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu, whom he called within two hours to tell him of the Lausanne deal -- remember how it took two days for Obama to call Netanyahu after his election victory? From observing him for six years, we know that Obama is vindictive -- he goes to great lengths to settle scores with Republicans, make President GW Bush's Iraq policy seem wrong, defeat Netanyahu, oppose el-Sisi who overthrew and destroyed the Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood, abandon Saudi Arabia and America's other traditional sunni Middle East allies, and please his leftist progressive faction within the Democratic Party. His vindictiveness has led Barack Obama to take strategic risks with national security and international peace in the pursuit of personal and partisan gains. Obama's Iran nuclear deal is the biggest world threat he has ever created in the name of personal glorification.