After 18 days of marathon talks in the Austrian capital of Vienna, Iran and the P5+1 group reached an agreement on July 14 on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which will put certain limits on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for the removal of sanctions against Iran.
Aaron David Miller, vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, argues that even though both sides have agreed to the same words, it doesn't necessarily mean that Washington and Teheran are on the same page. We encountered this problem with the Lausanne framework released in April; Iran and the U.S. had talking points on some key issues, such as when sanctions would be lifted, and it resulted in more than a few problems. "This accord is supposed to be the final deal. If the creative ambiguity required to produce it is too creative (read: ambiguous), it could lead to the sort of destructive ambiguity that blows things up. Watch for areas of disagreement in how each side discusses the agreement publicly."
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Miller pointed out that more than a few diplomats have talked about a "draft" in describing the putative accord in recent days. A final agreement should lay to rest the sensitive issues that led to three extensions of the negotiations, he said adding: "Have the Iranians agreed to anywhere, anytime inspections? What specific limits have been placed on research and development of advanced centrifuges? What process has been designated to establish the baseline for past military aspects of Iran's nuclear program (the "military dimensions" issue)? Iran's demand to terminate the U.N. Security Council embargo on importing arms led to a last-minute standoff. These are some of the key issues that Congress and opponents of a deal will be scrutinizing. Whether the answers are good or bad, the agreement should provide them clearly."
After finalization of the wording of the agreement, now comes the turn of those interpreting it, Zvi Bar'el of Haaretz, said adding:
"The agreement is about 100 pages long, but its hundreds of provisions and addenda also include some with a certain share of constructive ambiguity -- of the kind, typical of nearly every agreement, that leaves some room for "flexible understanding" on the part of the Western powers and Iran.
"According to diplomatic sources close to the negotiations, without such room for interpretation, it would have been impossible to reach an accord. Great effort was put into making the wiggle room as limited as possible and in clearly spelling out the limits of what is to be permitted and what is not. This constitutes the first possible minefield in an agreement that, without exaggeration, can be dubbed historic."
Zvi Bar'el agrees with the former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani that the deal breaks a taboo in that for the first time since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran and the United States have conducted direct negotiations that are perceived in Tehran as talks between equals rather than something the Iranians engaged in from a situation of weakness or compulsion.
Anyone seeking an ideological rationale for the Iranian motivations in signing the agreement can also find it in the fact that it indeed may prove, from the Iranian standpoint, that the country's revolution has gained legitimization, international recognition and even a chance for preservation since from this point on, the life of the accord is dependent upon that same revolutionary regime. That's no small accomplishment for a regime that up to now had been such an abomination, Zvi Bar'el concluded.
After 18 days of intense negotiations, the U.S. and five other world powers Wednesday reached a deal to freeze Iran's nuclear program for the next decade in exchange for gradual sanctions relief that rolls out as Iran complies with a multi-step process.
The accord will keep Iran from producing enough material for a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years and impose new provisions for inspections of Iranian facilities, including military sites. And it marks a dramatic break from decades of animosity between the United States and Iran, countries that alternatively call each other the "leading state sponsor of terrorism" and the "the Great Satan."
As reported by Breitbart, the Islamic Republic News Agency celebrated the agreement to "remove all misunderstandings on Iran's peaceful nuclear program and simultaneous termination of unfair economic sanctions on Iran."
"The agreement has fully observed the instructions and redlines drawn up by the Islamic Republic of Iran leading to the following achievements in the field of nuclear activities and termination of all types of sanctions," writes IRNA, before listing such bullet points as:
Vital facts on Iran's peaceful nuclear programs had been ignored in an unfair manner to depict the program as a threat to the international peace and security but it has now turned into a theme for broadening international cooperation with other countries within international standards.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is to be recognized as a nuclear technology power authorized to have peaceful nuclear programs such as complete nuclear fuel cycle and enrichment to be identified by the United Nations.