Is the Iran deal really a deal at all?
Israel Hayom | Is the Iran deal really a deal at all?.
Elliot Abrams
There are many arguments today about the substance of the agreement between Iran and the P5+1. But there is a prior question: Is there really an agreement at all?
Looking at the text of the “agreement,” the most striking thing is the conditional or aspirational language:
“The goal for these negotiations is to reach a mutually agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful. … This comprehensive solution would build on these initial measures. … There would be additional steps in between the initial measures and the final step. … This comprehensive solution would involve a reciprocal, step-by-step process. …”
Would, would, would. Not “shall.”
The White House fact sheet on the “agreement” says: “Today, the P5+1 and Iran reached a set of initial understandings. …”
But the White House text keeps saying “will,” not would. It does seem, at a minimum, that the “agreement” reached in Geneva is not self-executing and will next require negotiation of an implementation agreement. The text of the agreement says that “The E3+3 and Iran will be responsible for conclusion and implementation of mutual near-term measures. …” But the need for “conclusion” of near-term measures suggests that the “near-term measures” are not actually yet agreed.
The Obama administration should clarify whether that is or is not the case, because the entire “agreement” can be hung up over that negotiation over implementation. The “agreement” does not appear to be binding on any party, which is convenient for the Obama administration in one way: No one can argue that it is a form of treaty that must be approved by the Senate.
But what is this beast? Is it a binding agreement at all? An “Executive Agreement?” An expression of intent? Given the difficulty ahead in getting Iran to comply with any promises it has made, the exact nature of those promises is worth defining.
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
WarSclerotic 
November 28, 2013 at 2:23 AM
Rouhani said Israel is more isolated now after the Geneva deal . then Obama states that they have to agree to deal. .does anybody in this so called deal knows what the hell is going on. if there was no agreement why did they release 8 billion dollars to iran. Obama ,Kerry and astron need help I don:t think they know which planet they are on. These people get paid to come up with this bulls#it unbelievable ! Next thing iran is going to make them stand on their heads. iran got them spinning in circles its even making me dizzy just trying to read this BS
November 28, 2013 at 6:44 AM
The Geneva Agreement is the first step in the US – Iran peace process. After decades of silence, both parties are now talking directly to each other. This will hopefully lead to full rehabilitation of the US – Iran relationship.
November 28, 2013 at 8:06 AM
Why don’t you guys start by giving your disgusting and primitive “death to America” chants a miss,
Too much to ask that you quit the “death to Israel” ones, I suppose.
Just bear in mind that whatever threats you make to innocent others will in the end occur to you. That’s a law of nature….
November 28, 2013 at 9:22 AM
I think along the same lines JW,
whether in relation to Iran or to the” Palastinian” issue.
As long as there is NO recognition or statement of desire by the second party for normalisation with the State of Israel, so there’s nothing to talk about. No peace will come of this, only war, simply because war is what they want.