Iran's Persian statement on 'deal' contradicts Obama's
By Amir Taheri
New York Post
April 4, 2015
"Iran Agrees to Detailed Nuclear Outline," The New
York Times headline claimed on Friday. That found an echo in the Washington Post
headline of the same day: "Iran agrees to nuclear restrictions in framework
deal with world powers."
But the first thing to know about the highly hyped "historic achievement" that President Obama is trying to sell is that there has been no agreement on any of the fundamental issues that led to international concern about Iran's secret nuclear activities and led to six mandatory resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and 13 years of diplomatic seesaw.
All we have is a number of contradictory statements by various participants in the latest round of talks in Switzerland, which together amount to a diplomatic dog's dinner.
First, we have a joint statement in English in 291 words by Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif and the European Union foreign policy point-woman Federica Mogherini, who led the so-called P5+1 group of nations including the US in the negotiations.
Next we have the official Iranian text, in Persian, which runs into 512 words. The text put out by the French comes with 231 words. The prize for "spinner-in-chief" goes to US Secretary of State John Kerry who has put out a text in 1,318 words and acts as if we have a done deal.
It is not only in their length that the texts differ.
They amount to different, at times starkly contradictory, narratives.
The Mogherini and French texts are vague enough to be ultimately meaningless, even as spin.
The Persian text carefully avoids words that might give the impression that anything has been agreed by the Iranian side or that the Islamic Republic has offered any concessions.
The Iranian text is labelled as a press statement only. The American text, however, pretends to enumerate "Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" and claims key points have been "decided." What remains to be done is work out "implementation details."
When referring to what Iran is supposed to do, the Iranian text uses a device of Persian grammar known as "nakarah," a form of verbs in which the authorship of a deed remains open to speculation.
For example: " It then happened that . . ." or "that is to be done."
But when it comes to things the US and allies are supposed to do, the grammatical form used is "maerfah" which means the precise identification of the author.
This is an example of the first form: "The nuclear facilities at Fordow shall be developed into a center for nuclear research and advanced Physics." It is not clear who is going to do those things, over what length of time, and whether that would be subject to any international supervision.
An example of the second form: "The United Nations shall abrogate its previous resolutions while the United States and the European Union will immediately lift sanctions [imposed on] financial, banking, insurance, investment and all services related to oil, gas, petrochemicals and car industry."
The Iranian text opens 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 this or that, for example reducing the number of centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,500.
The Iranian text, however, says that Iran "shall be able to . . ." or "qader khahad boud" in Farsi to do such a thing. The same is true about enrichment in Fordow. The Americans say Iran has agreed to stop enrichment there 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 diametrically opposed.
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 text claims that Iran has agreed to dismantle the core of the heavy water plutonium plant in Arak. The Iranian text says the opposite. The plant shall remain and be updated and modernized.
In the past two days Kerry and Obama and their apologists have been all over the place claiming that the Iranian nuclear project and its military-industrial offshoots would be put under a kind of international tutelage for 10, 15 or even 25 years.
However, the Persian, Italian and French texts contain no such figures.
The US talks of sanctions " relief" while Iran claims the sanctions would be "immediately terminated."
The American text claims Tehran has agreed to take measures to reassure the international community on military aspects of its nuclear project, an oblique reference to Iran's development, with help from North Korea, of missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads. There is absolutely no echo of that in the Iranian and other non-American texts.
In his jubilatory remarks in the Rose Garden Thursday, Obama tried to sell the Americans a bill of goods.
He made three outrageous claims.
The first was 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. It was on Obama's watch and because of his perceived weakness that Iran speeded up its nuclear program.
The second claim was that thanks to the scheme he is peddling "all of Iran's paths" to developing a nuclear arsenal would be blocked. And, yet, in the same remarks he admitted that even if the claimed deal is fully implemented, Iran would still be able to build a bomb in just a year, presumably jumping over the "blocked paths."
Obama's worst claim was that the only alternative to his attempts at surrendering to the obnoxious Khomeinist regime would be US involvement in "another ground war in the Middle East."
He ignores the fact that forcing Iran through diplomatic action, sanctions and proximity pressures to abide by six UN resolutions could also be regarded as an alternative. In other words, preemptive surrender is not the only alternative to war.
Obama is playing a bizarre game that could endanger regional peace and threaten the national security of the US and its allies. He insisted that Kerry secure "something, anything" before April 14 to forestall the US Congress' planned moves on Iran.
He also wanted to stick it to Netanyahu, settle scores with Republicans, and please his faction within the Democratic Party; in other words, taking strategic risks with national security and international peace in the pursuit of dubious partisan gains.