In my recent JPost blog, Bush, Obama and the Coming Arab-Iran War, I describe American policy weakness and misguided policy resulting in the disaster of Iraq, Libya and Syria at the cost of perhaps a million locals as “collateral damage.” The net result of such intentional or not policy blunders to date has been the “Arab Spring” turned regional war. The most recent blunder, Obamas “Framework Agreement” gifting Iran both nuclear threshold status by which to promote its dreams of renewed empire, its ultimate war against the West is the ultimate act of striking a deal with the devil, an act of weakness not demonstrated by the “democracies” since the US backed Chamberlain’s appeasement towards Hitler. 

The article below significantly reduced appeared yesterday (16 April) in one on-line news source; the concluding paragraph appeared late today in a second. Both describe what are perhaps the key provisions “assuring compliance” with the Framework Agreement: phased reduction of sanctions according to evidence of Iranian compliance; and the “snap back provision” which would immediately come into play should Iran renege on its obligations. 

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.

I leave it to the reader to draw conclusions based on the asserted Framework Agreement, and the US president’s commitment to its enactment based on his own testimony today.

Obama's lies about Iran framework agreement 

Op-ed: After failing desperately for months to convince Iranians to agree to any concessions on an interim nuclear deal, its seems US president and secretary of state decided to create something from nothing and to sell it to all as if Iran agrees to it. 

Obama is untruthful when he repeatedly claims that Iran has agreed to a detailed and comprehensive nuclear framework agreement. Iran has never signed or agreed to the framework agreement… Two documents were produced in Switzerland on April 2. The first document is a detailed US fact sheet titled, "Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Program"…   

The second document is a thin, page and a half statement read jointly by European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, which lacked any of the details, numbers, and deadlines mentioned in the framework agreement. 

As David Ignatius, a well- known columnist for the Washington Post, wrote, "The late-night sessions and threats to break off the talks weren't enough to get Iran to commit formally to the terms the United States laid out in a meticulous, four-page list of 'parameters' for a binding 'joint comprehensive plan.' The Iranians instead postponed that sign-off to another day, after the final, final negotiations." He concluded that the framework agreement "looks like a pretty good deal. I just wish it were signed." 

It seems that after failing desperately for months to convince the Iranians to agree to any concessions on an interim nuclear deal, Kerry and Obama decided to create something from nothing and to sell it to all as if the Iranians agree to it. 

On April 2, an hour or so after Obama began distributing the framework agreement, calling it "an historic understanding with Iran," Zarif, the main Iranian negotiator…  cautioned that no one had signed anything in Lausanne, Switzerland and "nobody has obligations now" and that would come after a final agreement. 

Even the New York Times, two days after applauding Obama's efforts, had to acknowledge that "one problem is that there are two versions. …which have raised the question of whether the two sides are entirely on the same page, especially on the question of how quickly sanctions are to be removed."

Obama says US open to talks with Iran on immediately lifting sanctions 

Asked whether he would definitively rule out lifting sanctions at once as part of a final deal aimed at keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, Obama said… his main concern is making sure that if Iran violates an agreement, sanctions can quickly be reinstated — the so-called “snap back” provision. 

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or viewpoint of The Jerusalem Post. Blog authors are NOT employees, freelance or salaried, of The Jerusalem Post.

Think others should know about this? Please share