The Obama administration is misleading lawmakers and the public about purported concessions made by Iran in the latest round of nuclear talks, top Iranian officials insisted over the weekend, renewing a year-old debate about the administrations transparency regarding the fragile negotiations.Iran over the weekend pushed back against key claims made by the administration to lawmakers and the press about further concessions agreed to by Iran following the last round of talk in Vienna regarding the countrys contested nuclear program.
In talking points disseminated to congressional offices since the extension in talks was announced, the administration has claimed that the terms of the agreementwhich will prolong talks through July 2015included significant concessions by Tehran,accordingto the Associated Press.
However, Iran says that this is a lie and that no new concessions have been agreed upon.
The confusion over what was exactly agreed upon between the sides is likely to impact an ongoing political dispute between Congress and the White House over whether continued diplomacy is enabling the Islamic Republic to advance its nuclear program.
The conflict also harkens back to similar disagreements regarding the November 2013interim nuclear agreementstruck in Geneva.
Iran, at that time, alsoaccused the White House of lyingabout the deal after several statements by the administration were later rebuffed by Irans negotiating team. The administration was ultimately forced to walk back these statements.
In the latest round of talks, Iran is said to have promised to permit surprise inspections of its nuclear sites and to eradicate portions of its uranium stockpiles, according to terms of the deal being presented by the White House to lawmakers.
The State Department claimed to theWashington Free Beaconthat additional steps had been agreed upon in the talks.
There are additional steps Iran has agreed to take in order to provide further proof of the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, a State Department official told theFree Beaconwhen asked about the terms of the extension.These include increased access on centrifuge production, more conversion of oxide into fuel, curbs on work on certain enrichment technologies, and curbs on certain forms of [research and development].
However, Iranian officials maintain that none of this is true.
The conflicting accounts raise new questions about what exactly was agreed upon under the extension, the details of which are being closely guarded by the White House and are only accessible to those with classified security clearance.
In response to the APs initial report about the White Houses claims, a top Iranian official said that no further concessions have been agreed to by Iran.
The conditions for extending the nuclear negotiations to July 1, 2015, were like the conditions reining the extension of the previous deadlines and no new undertaking has been added to it, Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesman for Irans Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI,),toldthe countrys state-run media over the weekend.
Other Iranian officials also rejected the terms of the deal as presented to Congress by the White House.
A source close to the Tehran-powers negotiations said that this is not true at all and the trend of R&D on enrichment is moving along its natural track at the AEOI, Irans Fars News Agency reported.
Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), a leading advocate of imposing greater sanctions on Tehran, called the conflicting statements from the United States and Iran deeply troubling.
Its deeply troubling that the United States and Iran cannot even publicly agree on what it is that they privately agreed to in the November 24th extension of the nuclear talks, Kirk told theFree Beacon.
None of this bodes well for the administrations chances of getting a good Iran deal that can survive in the 114th Congress, let alone after Obamas term ends, Kirk said.
Sources working closely on the Iran issue speculated that the administration might be exaggerating the terms in order to appease hawkish members of Congress who are seeking to impose greater sanctions on Tehran, a policy the White House objects to.
The administration desperately needs to convince Congress that Irans uranium and plutonium programs are actually frozen, which isnt true, and so they could very well be lying about these new concessions, said a foreign policy analyst involved in the public debate over the extension.
The problem is that theres no way to tell. White House officials have no credibility left, because theyve been caught outright lying to lawmakers and journalists about imaginary Iranian concessions before, the source said. No one would be surprised if they did it again.
A State Department official did not respond to further questions about Irans most recent claims that the administration is misleading lawmakers about the extension.
A similar fight between Iran and the White House erupted in 2013, when Tehran accused the White House of lying about the terms of the deal as presented to reporters in a fact sheet.
The White Houseoriginally announcedthat Iran has committed to no further advances of its activities on the Arak heavy water reactor, which potentially provides Iran with a plutonium path to the bomb.
That claim waswalked backjust days later by theState Departmentafter a top Iranian official declared that Iran would continue bolstering its plutonium producing facility at Arak.
In addition to discrepancies over Irans work at Arak, the administration also was forced at the timeto admitthat the nuclear deal did not put an end to Irans controversial ballistic missiles program.
Iranian officials were quick to publicly lash out at the White House for lying about the interim deal, which is still in effect as talks continue through next year.
What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true, the Iranian Foreign Ministrysaidin the days following the 2013 interim agreement.
By Business Insider
The Iran Project is not responsible for the content of quoted articles.
