Beyond the Cusp

April 8, 2015

The Iran Framework Controversies and Forbidden Areas


The reports, statements, coverages, and interviews of the separate teams of the United States and Iranian teams and political leaders about the terms derived from the Framework wording differ by a little more than a measure of degrees and are approaching diametric opposites. One might question how such difference between interpretations could ever exist from the exact same set of words which they had agreed to and both surmised meant something similar to their adversaries on the other side of the table. The truth turns out to be one of the most damning realities of the entire fiasco this far as the English version and the Farsi barely resemble each other and the French and European Union foreign policy head Federica Mogherini versions borderline being meaningless and contradictory terminology, perhaps because they were written in the original international political language, French. How translations from presumably identical base text can become so completely different may be something apparently impossible, but then these translations are being produced by the finest spin doctors on the planet that money can buy. We need to remember that the renditions we are hearing have all been filtered through different lenses and bounced off opposing mirrors and then twisted and rotated until they represent exactly what each side promised their public would be the result of the negotiations proving their mastery of the situation. Of course this leads to another problem which will simply serve to muddy the water further as each source reporting on the results will be, thanks to the international reach of media, using the source text from whichever result be it the confused and meaningless French to the Farsi or the English version presented in the United States when making their case that the Framework represents exactly what they had predicted.


So, what is it we can actually take from these various versions of the Framework? Initially we know we can take virtually any reading about any particular area of the Iranian nuclear program, the international sanctions and all the threats, promises, innuendoes and ramifications from every last talking head, politician, national leader and individual negotiator cares to put on the Framework. Our interpretation of the Framework is that it is an amorphous, incoherent, ambiguous and vague congruence of terms resembling a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The Framework in the form explained by both the United States President’s Administration and the representatives of the Supreme Leader in Iran will both be cast aside and the full fury fur-ball of unrestrained political recriminations immediately followed by declarations decrying the misinterpretations of their opposing interpretations of the Framework which will quickly lead to a restart from square-one and discarding all interpretations of the Framework as they will all prove unacceptable by one side, the other or both. The probability that a final agreement will be possible by the June 30th deadline depends on what year you place at the end, 2015 makes that highly doubtful and any year other than that we all had best hope are just as ridiculous. The question becomes what will be the reaction when the lack of any possibility of reaching a mutually agreeable settlement becomes unavoidable. Our expectation is that Iran does not even begin to desire any agreement which will limit their desires for becoming the next nuclear armed nation thus they have no requirement to reach any agreement beyond the level of sanctions being enforced or any other of the potential ramifications of refusing to bend and reach an accord. President Obama has already revealed his desired action is lowering the level of sanctions by releasing some of the sanctions over the Iranian economy thus enticing Iran over ramping up sanctions to force Iran to comply or face economic ruin. By making his method enticement over punishment, Iran has no fear that President Obama will make things more difficult for their intransigence but rather will relieve the pressures of the sanctions as a reward for future Iranian compliance. By using the carrot over the stick, President Obama has encouraged at the very least an initial rejection of even the most generous of conditions waiting for the release of sanctions before having to agree to an offer and then demanding additional sanctions be release upon agreement. This has rewarded Iran already to a point where the present sanctions are not sufficient to apply economic pressures where the government is in any peril of a revolt by the people. Even currently the inspection regime attempting to be executed by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) is minimal and nowhere near being beyond all reasonable expectations yet the Iranians have refused many of their demands for explanations of previous potential military research and actions and the IAEA also suspects that the Iranians have recently opened an unannounced facility near Tehran deep underground beneath existing buildings so as to disguise the operations and provide an unobservable entrance equipped with their most modern centrifuges operating in cascades producing enriched uranium outside of any restrictions as reported by the same anti-regime sources who originally reported the Iranian nuclear program to the world.


Should this new report ever become verified it then begs an even bigger question, what should the United States demand from Iran due to their attempted intrigues? We all probably read reports or actually listened to videos or seen President Obama make his announcement that “all options remain on the table including the military option.” We have often debated what exactly that statement means and what we can expect. We have reached one singular point of agreement that the always mentioned military option which is stressed to be on the table is mentioned so prominently because it will never ever be taken from its position on the table by President Obama. It is very possible that no United States President in the foreseeable future could in-gather sufficient popular public support to permit taking the military option off the table and implement it. Then we often hear that at the first hint that the Iranians have transgressed any of the terms of the agreements, assuming one is ever formed and unilaterally accepted, the sanctions which had been terminated could be immediately reinstituted and applied pressing Iran to immediately come back into compliance or pay the continued penalty. This is considered unlikely for the duration of the Obama Presidency and will be dependent on who wins the elections in 2016 who will decide what should be done sanctions wise concerning any Iranian refusal to comply completely with any agreement reached during the upcoming negotiations. A lot depends on what the final draft of any agreement stipulates and even further, what the Iranians agree it stipulates, after all everything does depend on what the meaning of is, is; not to mentions the other words such as enrichment, centrifuges, cascade, modern, fastest, most, advanced, least and every word or phrase within the agreement. This problem has been made excessively evidenced by the seemingly opposite definitions to the agreement when it was translated into French (ambiguous), Farsi (near complete freedom to continue full speed with their program and immediate end to all sanctions and no necessary inspections routine) and English (shuttering of two-thirds of centrifuges, Arak reactor neutered, solely old centrifuge use, strict inspection routine and who knows whatever other restrictions). If each side is left to their own translations and thus their own conditions then why are there scheduled additional negotiations? Apart from permitting each side to report their own interpretations of the terms, there are numerous other reasons for simply putting off the remainder of the negotiations indefinitely as neither side is regarding the talks as a serious negotiation to try and prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. The Iranians are set on developing and building nuclear weapons capability and a delivery system making it an equal or superior to any other nuclear power in the world and President Obama is intent on putting off any Iranian actions using nuclear weapons until at least five years after he has left office making him apparently blameless and thus not interfering with his legacy as the greatest negotiator and international diplomat in history, at least the equal of Neville Chamberlain. Does this mean that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu is playing the part of Sir Winston Churchill? If so, he had better be ready for the media and a near unending political lynching and denunciations coming from all corner of the globe, but then how much different is this from normal in today’s anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist filled world. Let the insanity begin, or should we say continue at current pace.


Beyond the Cusp


Blog at

%d bloggers like this: