Did the US and Iran Actually Agree on a Deal?

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif cross a street while taking a walk in Geneva, Switzerland, on January 14, 2015.

State Department photo

AA Font size + Print

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif cross a street while taking a walk in Geneva, Switzerland, on January 14, 2015.

Merely days after a framework was announced, it's looking more like nothing has been settled between Tehran and the P5+1.

Barely days after U.S. and Iranian negotiators supposedly agreed to a “framework” for a final nuclear agreement, it is emerging that the United States and Iran may not actually have agreed after all.

On his apparent Twitter account, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has condemned the U.S. summary of the framework as “contrary to what was agreed,” adding, “They always deceive & breach promises.” Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, declared that he expected sanctions to be lifted immediately once a signed deal is implemented, not in the staged phases described by President Obama.

All of this reminds me of a decade-old story. Back in the Bush years, negotiations with Iran were entrusted to a three-power contact group: Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. I once spoke with one of the lead negotiators during a dinner at his nation’s embassy. He told me that repeatedly he and his Iranian counterpart would agree on some point—only for the counterpart to open the next meeting by denying that anything had been agreed the day before, casting them back to zero.

After this had happened more than once, the Western negotiator introduced a new tactic. He would have a member of his delegation take notes on the discussions in Farsi. At the end of the day, the Farsi-language notes would be presented to the Iranian counterpart for his review. “Have we understood everything correctly?” The counterpart nodded. “Would you then please kindly sign these notes to confirm that understanding?” The pen was produced, the document signed.

The next meeting opened as usual, with the Iranian counterpart rescinding everything that had been agreed at the last meeting. The Western negotiator triumphantly produced the signed minutes. The Iranian glanced contemptuously at the paper. “That’s not my signature,” he said.

Close [ x ] More from DefenseOne

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from DefenseOne.com.
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Software-Defined Networking

    So many demands are being placed on federal information technology networks, which must handle vast amounts of data, accommodate voice and video, and cope with a multitude of highly connected devices while keeping government information secure from cyber threats. This issue brief discusses the state of SDN in the federal government and the path forward.

  • Military Readiness: Ensuring Readiness with Analytic Insight

    To determine military readiness, decision makers in defense organizations must develop an understanding of complex inter-relationships among readiness variables. For example, how will an anticipated change in a readiness input really impact readiness at the unit level and, equally important, how will it impact readiness outside of the unit? Learn how to form a more sophisticated and accurate understanding of readiness and make decisions in a timely and cost-effective manner.

  • Cyber Risk Report: Cybercrime Trends from 2016

    In our first half 2016 cyber trends report, SurfWatch Labs threat intelligence analysts noted one key theme – the interconnected nature of cybercrime – and the second half of the year saw organizations continuing to struggle with that reality. The number of potential cyber threats, the pool of already compromised information, and the ease of finding increasingly sophisticated cybercriminal tools continued to snowball throughout the year.

  • A New Security Architecture for Federal Networks

    Federal government networks are under constant attack, and the number of those attacks is increasing. This issue brief discusses today's threats and a new model for the future.

  • Information Operations: Retaking the High Ground

    Today's threats are fluent in rapidly evolving areas of the Internet, especially social media. Learn how military organizations can secure an advantage in this developing arena.


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.