The officials of the Iranian regime and the United States issued contrasting assessments Tuesday on their progress toward an agreement to limit Tehran’s nuclear program.
Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of the Iranian regime, said that 90 percent of the technical issues had been worked out.
A senior American official was far more cautious in comments to reporters Tuesday morning.
The official, who declined to be identified by name under the protocol for briefing reporters said: “We have definitely made progress in terms of identifying technical options for each of the major areas.”
“There is no way around it: We still have a ways to go,” the official added. “Even within this space, we have some tough issues to address.”
As the negotiators met in Switzerland, the White House said Tuesday the chances of clinching a nuclear deal with Iran are 50/50 “at best”.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in Washington: “In the mind of the president the odds have not moved,” and “some of the most difficult issues … have yet to be resolved.”
The New York Times reported on Tuesday: “The clashing Iranian and American statements may be partly a matter of tactics. By describing the agreement as virtually at hand, the Iranians may be trying to build public pressure on the United States and its European partners to make concessions on remaining issues, which include what sort of restrictions should be placed on the research and development of advanced centrifuges, the difficult question of how quickly sanctions would be lifted, and what sort of far-reaching verification measures would be put in place.”
“American officials, who have generally been careful with pronouncements, know that they will need to defend the accord to a skeptical Congress and outside experts who suspect Iran wants the ability to produce weapons,” the report added.
New York Post wrote: “John Kerry is said to be nearing a deal with Iran on its nuclear program, but he says its leaders still have to make ‘some very tough and necessary choices.’ No deal, says Kerry, is better than a ‘bad’ deal.
But the Post added: “It’s not a ‘deal’ that counts. It’s stopping Iran from getting a bomb. However tough the terms, an agreement with Tehran is just a promise. A paper. A smile for the cameras.”
“It provides no assurance — none — that Iran won’t acquire nukes, in 10 years or 10 months.” “That would be true even if the mullahs could be trusted. And they can’t be.”
“In fact, it is only because Iran has cheated in the past that we are in this situation in the first place. The talks themselves are a reward for its cheating.”
Meanwhile in Washington, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) voiced optimism Tuesday on passage of a bill next week to give Congress the ability to weigh in on a nuclear deal with Iran.
“I hope we’re going to have a successful markup next week, if people stay in the positions that they’ve been … I don’t see any indication that that’s not the case,” he told reporters.
Corker said he is planning to schedule a vote on the bill in the committee either Wednesday or Thursday — days after a self-imposed March 24 deadline for international negotiators to reach a framework agreement with Iran to roll back its nuclear program.
There are 19 members on the committee — 10 Republicans and 9 Democrats. A majority vote would pass the bill out of committee, and Republicans are likely to be joined by at least four Democrats who have expressed support for the bill.
“The bill is crafted in such a way to be judicious and to cause the Senate and House to appropriately weigh in on a very important issue. It’s not crafted in any way as a ‘gotcha’ bill,” he said.
Former four term U.S. senator from Connecticut, Jozef Liberman, wrote in The Wall Street Journal: “The legislation now before the Senate, which may be taken up as early as next week, would allow Congress to assume its rightful role in a responsible, measured way. Rather than treating an Iran agreement as a treaty—which would require formal ratification by two-thirds of the Senate—the bill would adopt a less stringent standard.”
Mr. Lieberman said: “Congress should also review an Iran agreement because of the unusually extensive and direct role it has already played in formulating exactly those policies that a nuclear deal would alter and undo. Congress in 2010 designed and passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, which sought to punish companies and individuals that did business with Iran’s petroleum sector. Legislation in 2012 added further restrictions.”
“The essence of any deal would relieve the Iranians from such sanctions in exchange for certain restrictions on their nuclear activities. The sanctions under negotiation, however, are overwhelmingly the creation of Congress—put in law through bills passed by large bipartisan majorities. Given that Congress built the sanctions against Iran, it is unreasonable to bar it from any review or oversight in how that architecture is disassembled.”
“Congress has every right to review any agreement with Iran that the Obama administration reaches” he said.