Iran, US interpret nuclear deal differently

The recent breakthrough in the Iranian nuclear talks has raised hopes of a once-and-for-all solution for the 12-year-old standoff between Iran and the West.
However, there is still a tough road ahead before a comprehensive final accord could be reached as Tehran and Washington seem to have different interpretations on some details outlined in the framework nuclear deal reached Thursday.
A STEP IN RIGHT DIRECTION
After eight days of marathon talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, a framework nuclear agreement was reached on Thursday between Tehran and six major world powers, clearing the way for negotiators to work out technical details ahead of a June 30 deadline for a final deal.
U.S. President Barack Obama has hailed the agreement as "a good deal," which met America's core objectives, including strict limitations on Iran's program and cutting off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.
In a weekend interview with The New York Times published Sunday, Obama also strongly defended the preliminary agreement with Iran as a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" to prevent a nuclear bomb and bring longer-term stability to the Middle East.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Friday that the solutions meet Iran's national interests, hailing it as pragmatic and a victory of his administration.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Friday made a telephone call with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on the breakthrough made in the just concluded Iranian nuclear talks.
In the phone call, Wang said the important agreement reached in the latest round of Iranian nuclear talks attended by top diplomats of Iran and the P5+1 countries, namely the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China plus Germany, is attributed to all sides seizing the historic opportunity through concerted efforts.
However, despite the breakthrough made, the road ahead is clearly bumpy as there is still a great number of technical details to be worked out before a final deal could be sealed.
ONE ACTION PLAN, TWO INTERPRETATIONS?
For example, Iran and the United States have somewhat different interpretations on the details of the sanctions relief policy outlined in Thursday's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The different interpretations of Tehran and Washington have once again demonstrated their great chasm of differences.
Iran's version stressed the benefits to Iran of this week's negotiations, anticipating sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program "will be lifted immediately if a final deal is agreed."
In the U.S. narrative, however, the U.S. and EU nuclear-related sanctions "will be suspended after the IAEA has verified" that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps, and these sanctions will "snap back into place if at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitment."
A subtle difference can also be detected in their understandings about the nature of the action plan reached.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif has stressed repeatedly that the action plan is not legally binding, and instead, it only offers a path to a final solution, a comprehensive accord.
But in the text of the U.S. "fact sheet" on the action plan, expressions and terms such as "Iran has agreed that," "Iran will be required to" and "Iran will not" are used very frequently, which gave people the impression that Iran has already made very specific commitments.
The United States published a full text on the preliminary accord, while the version released by the Iranian side is much more like a concise guide to action, which fell short of mentioning some specific terms of agreements, such as "Iran has agreed to not build any new facilities for the purpose of enriching uranium for 15 years" and "Iran will only enrich uranium at the Natanz facility, with only 5,060 IR-1 first-generation centrifuges for 10 years."
Zarif disputed on Thursday the U.S. "fact sheet" that emphasized Iranian concessions and that referred to sanctions being suspended rather than lifted and only after confirmation that Tehran has complied with the terms of the agreement.
"The Americans put what they wanted in the fact sheet...I even protested this issue with (U.S. Secretary of State John) Kerry himself," he said in a television interview cited by the Fars news agency, adding that the U.N. Security Council would oversee any deal.
"Either side in this agreement can, in the case of the other side violating the agreement, cease its own steps," Zarif said. He mirrored earlier comments by Obama that sanctions could be reapplied if Iran did not stick to its word.
MISTRUST & DOMESTIC PRESSURE
In fact, the deep-rooted cause of the Iranian crisis is a lack of political trust between Tehran and Washington, while prospects for a final solution remain murkier, factoring in the tremendous domestic pressure from both Iran and the United States.
Rouhani is quite determined in getting the economic sanctions on Iran removed through the talks. But he has very limited room to make concessions in the following horse-trading, facing great pressure from Iran's conservative powers.
Moreover, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who is still skeptical and wary about Western countries, is not very optimistic about the outcome of the nuclear talks.
Obama, on his part, is also facing pressure and even obstructions from the pro-Israel elements at home including some Congressmen, especially those from among the Republicans.
Meanwhile, the strong opposition of Israel is by no means neglectable.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday denounced the agreement between Tehran and world powers as a "bad deal."
"It doesn't roll back Iran's nuclear program," Netanyahu said.
"It keeps a vast nuclear infrastructure in place. Not a single centrifuge is destroyed. Not a single nuclear facility is shut down, including the underground facilities that they built illicitly. Thousands of centrifuges will keep spinning enriching uranium. That's a bad deal," he said.