Well, folks, the White House is out enriching its account of the "historic" deal reached with Iran. The ol' Obama PR machine and its media acolytes are spinning like centrifuges, praising the "deal" to the sky. In all these mushrooming detonations of praise and self-congratulation one simple, little, itsy-bitsy fact has been overlooked. I hate to be the party pooper, but, well, there is no deal.
Nope. No deal. I'll get back to that in a second but first let's look at another "deal" that was supposed to be a historic breakthrough that would assure peace.
Yes, of course, I refer to the September 29, 1938 "Munich Agreement" reached by Germany, Italy, the UK, and France. I have written about this before, so let me be brief. That deal conceded to Hitler's demands for Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland. If you read the text at the link above, you can see that it was a very short, and very much to the point description of what would happen to the Sudetenland and to the Germans living in the rest of Czechoslovakia.
You will see that nowhere does the Agreement contain the famous words, "Peace in our time," and nowhere does it state explicitly that Germany would give up further territorial claims in Europe. That stuff was spin by Chamberlain to sell the deal in the UK, silence the increasingly vocal Winston Churchill, and soothe the highly uneasy French leader Daladier. The Munich deal was so successful that less than a year later--voila!--the Second World War was underway as Germany invaded Poland, ignoring Anglo-French guarantees to that nation as just so much fake "red line" drawing.
So comparing the Geneva "deal" with Iran to the Munich Agreement is unfair to the Munich Agreement. Chamberlain wasn't lying when he announced he had a deal; Obama and Kerry are lying when they announce that they have a deal.
I repeat, there is no deal.
I have been in lots of negotiations, and can spot fake talking points real fast. The giveaway, of course, is that the detailed "parameters" were announced by the US; where are the signatures on the deal? I want to see where the Iranians signed.
The Iranian take on the "parameters" is quite different from the line peddled by Obama and Kerry. While Obama seeks to give the impression that these "parameters" have been agreed, the Iranian position is that, basically, these "parameters" establish the topics that will be discussed over the following weeks and months, except, of course, for one. The Iranians claim that sanctions must be lifted immediately or there is no further "progress." In addition, of course, the Iranians get to keep their nuclear program. A minor detail.
This is as fake as fake can be. Worse. It is a massive capitulation by the West, the US most notably, and a tremendous boost to the madmen in Tehran. Does anybody believe that were the Iranians to "cheat" on some hypothetical deal in the near future we would see a reimposition of sanctions? Sure . . . there would be endless debate within the West over whether the Iranians are cheating, and if so whether that cheating rises to the level of new sanctions, especially since the Iranians are just about to order some Airbus aircraft, and to let Repsol have an oil contract and, and . . . won't happen. Remember those "red lines"?
Iran 1 - Civilization 0