Issues Under Fire: Obama's Nimble Response to Tehran's Agreement Disagreements

 Issues Under Fire: Obama's Nimble Response to Tehran's Agreement Disagreements 

While its not this observer's intention to nitpick, it must be noted how painful it was to witness President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry nimbly navigate direct questions concerning Tehran's wildly conflicting interpretation of the Iran-P5+1 framework agreement. Publicly challenged over major disputed issues, the President was obliged to respond to allegations that he and his chief negotiator intentionally misrepresented the framework's fact sheet. 

Although the Obama administration pushed back against the Supreme Leader's charges of the United States spinning tales of concessions Tehran never made, given the significant divergence in critical areas of agreement, to say "You know, they're going to put their spin on their point of view and obviously they'll allege that we're putting a spin on our point of view," as John Kerry said during an interview with ABC's "This Week" appeared less than an outright denial. 

One should be careful not to misinterpret what Tehran has done. The United States has been called out as a liar by Iran's Supreme Leader. Whenever your word and or reputation is challenged publicly, you've got to respond quickly, unequivocally and just as publicly. Refusing to address major points of contention (in detail), after one's adversary has exposed serious differences in the public square, one could leave the casual observer with the impression that you've got issues to hide. 

The Supreme Leader's accusations left nothing to the imagination. Tehran was clear and direct. There was no room for wiggling, weaseling, parsing of words or the slightest chance of walking anything back. If the only framework agreement Iran signed off on states sanctions will be lifted upon final agreement, peaceful nuclear research and development will continue and intrusive inspections will not include some military installations, then one must conclude, there's more than one agreement, or one or more parties to "the agreement" is lying. 

Since no one can say for sure what's been promised off line, what's been agreed to in principle or what's been penciled in for latter discussions, one can only speculate as to which party is more like telling the truth. But considering the Obama administration is the only party to the negotiations so mired in the muck of domestic politics, it has the burden of selling the deal, it would appear Barack Obama's team had stronger motives and incentives to spin the facts in order to keep the process alive. 

Bottom line: The only way the Obama administration is going to get a deal done with Iran is to be more upfront and less cagey. If Tehran has established red lines that won't even be considered, let alone accepted by Congress, its better to acknowledge that sooner than later. If not, no matter how long the process is dragged out, the end result will be the same. No Deal! Iran Still Wins! Podcast Below!