Iran Deal – Can You Have a Deal When Both Sides Don’t Agree on the Terms?

So the big foreign policy deal with Iran that the Obama administration (and their allies in the media) has been pushing for may actually be one BIG farce. And I don’t mean because it’s a bad deal (though it is a bad deal). I mean that it may be one big farce because while team Obama and the media have been hailing this “historic” deal… it sounds more and more like Iran and the USA didn’t actually agree on a deal.

I kid you not.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday he neither backed nor rejected an interim accord with six world powers on Tehran’s disputed nuclear program but demanded all sanctions be lifted immediately once a final agreement was concluded.

He added in a televised speech that the details of the accord would be decisive, and the publication of a US fact sheet showing terms that were at variance with the Iranian view of the agreement showed “devilish” US intentions.

Trending: A Message for Obama – “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”

“I neither support nor oppose it,” he said. “Everything is in the details; it may be that the deceptive other side wants to restrict us in the details.”

“The White House put out a statement just a few hours after our negotiators finished their talks…this statement, which they called a ‘fact sheet’, was wrong on most of the issues.”


And here he is reiterating that no deal will be struck unless every single sanction against Iran is lifted on the day the deal is signed. The lifting of every single sanction does not seem possible, or even plausible. If that is a hard line, I doubt any deal can ever be struck, unless President Obama is willing to literally give the Iranians everything they want at the expense of our allies and even our own national security.



So, is there a deal or not?

Maybe it’s just the lying terroristic Iranian regime blowing smoke to make it seem like they’re the tough guys on the block…

Or maybe it’s the Obama administration that has been lying to us?

A new piece on the deal with Iran in the New York Times makes it sound like it might be the Obama administration that is doing the lying.

A careful review shows that there is considerable overlap between the two accounts, but also some noteworthy differences — 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. The American and Iranian statements also do not clarify some critical issues, such as precisely what sort of research Iran will be allowed to undertake on advanced centrifuges during the first 10 years of the accord.

obama iranObama administration officials insist that there is no dispute on what was agreed behind closed doors. But to avoid time-consuming deliberations on what would be said publicly, the two sides decided during Wednesday’s all-night discussions that each would issue its own statement.

American officials acknowledge that they did not inform the Iranians in advance of all the “parameters” the United States would make public in an effort to lock in progress made so far, as well as to strengthen the White House’s case against any move by members of Congress to impose more sanctions against Iran.

“We talked to them and told them that we would have to say some things,” said a senior administration official who could not be identified under the protocol for briefing reporters. “We didn’t show them the paper. We didn’t show them the whole list.”

The official acknowledged that it was “understood that we had different narratives, but we wouldn’t contradict each other.”

No sooner were the negotiations over on Thursday, however, than Mr. Zarif posted to Twitter a message that dismissed the five-page set of American parameters as “spin.”

In an appearance on Iranian state television Saturday, Mr. Zarif kept up that refrain, saying that Iran had formally complained to Secretary of State John Kerry that the measures listed in the American statement were “in contradiction” to what had actually been accepted in Lausanne.

So when’s a “deal” not really a “deal”? Apparently it’s anytime the Obama administration is involved and wants to make sure that they save face… no matter how many lies they have to tell.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend