En kjent eksil-iraner, Amir Taheri, skriver i New York Post, at fremstillingen på amerikansk side av en historisk avtale med Iran, ikke gjenspeiler realitetene. Iran bruker ikke ordet avtale i det hele tatt.

Begge parter ble enige om å gi hver sin versjon av det de ble enige om. Det vet vi. Men iranerne sier noe som fundmentalt bryter med amerikanerne: De sier det ikke foreligger noen avtale i det hele tatt, i den betydning Obama-administrasjonen utlegger det som.

But the first thing to know about the highly hyped “historic achievement” that President Obama is trying to sell is that there has been no agreement on any of the fundamental issues that led to international concern about Iran’s secret nuclear activities and led to six mandatory resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and 13 years of diplomatic seesaw.

All we have is a number of contradictory statements by various participants in the latest round of talks in Switzerland, which together amount to a diplomatic dog’s dinner.

Bare lengden på tekstene er helt forskjellige. Den iranske er kort, mens den John Kerry publiserte er fire ganger så lang. Den iranske åpner med å si at det ikke er inngått noen avtale som er juridisk bindende, kun det man kaller en intensjon:

ANNONSE

The Iranian text opens by insisting that it has absolutely no “legal aspect” and is intended only as “a guideline for drafting future accords.”

Det kan virke som om Obama-administrasjonen var så oppsatt på en avtale at man sa seg fornøyd med et opplegg der Iran fikk lov å definere innholdet på egne premisser. Det kan komme til å felle hele avtalen.

First, we have a joint statement in English in 291 words by Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif and the European Union foreign policy point-woman Federica Mogherini, who led the so-called P5+1 group of nations including the US in the negotiations.

Next we have the official Iranian text, in Persian, which runs into 512 words. The text put out by the French comes with 231 words. The prize for “spinner-in-chief” goes to US Secretary of State John Kerry who has put out a text in 1,318 words and acts as if we have a done deal.

It is not only in their length that the texts differ.

They amount to different, at times starkly contradictory, narratives.

The Mogherini and French texts are vague enough to be ultimately meaningless, even as spin.

Den iranske teksten blir en passiv form når den skal beskrive hva som skal skje i Iran. Man bruker en verbform av typen «og det skjedde i de dager» – hvor den handlende er en ukjent tredepart.

The Iranian text is labelled as a press statement only. The American text, however, pretends to enumerate “Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” and claims key points have been “decided.” What remains to be done is work out “implementation details.”

When referring to what Iran is supposed to do, the Iranian text uses a device of Persian grammar known as “nakarah,” a form of verbs in which the authorship of a deed remains open to speculation.

For example: “ It then happened that . . .” or “that is to be done.”

But when it comes to things the US and allies are supposed to do, the grammatical form used is “maerfah” which means the precise identification of the author.

USA hevder som uomtvistelig at Iran har lovet å redusere antallet sentrifuger fra 19.000 til 6.500.

The Iranian text, however, says that Iran “shall be able to . . .” or “qader khahad boud” in Farsi to do such a thing. The same is true about enrichment in Fordow. The Americans say Iran has agreed to stop enrichment there for 15 years. The Iranian text, however, refers to this as something that Iran “will be able to do,” if it so wished.

Sometimes the two texts are diametrically opposed.

The American statement claims that Iran has agreed not to use advanced centrifuges, each of which could do the work of 10 old ones. The Iranian text, however, insists that “on the basis of solutions found, work on advanced centrifuges shall continue on the basis of a 10-year plan.”

The American text claims that Iran has agreed to dismantle the core of the heavy water plutonium plant in Arak. The Iranian text says the opposite. The plant shall remain and be updated and modernized.

Men når det gjelder hva USA og det internasjonale samfunn har forpliktet seg til, er Iran krystallklare: De lover å oppheve sanksjonene og annullere seks resolusjoner i Sikkerhetsrådet. Men USA snakker bare om «relief», lettelser, ikke opphevelse.

Men det mest graverende ved forhandlingsløsningen var den innpakningen Obama kom med i Rosehaven Skjærtorsdag. Han presenterte det som at en avtale vil forhindre at USA trenger å gå til en ny krig i Midtøsten.

Obama’s worst claim was that the only alternative to his attempts at surrendering to the obnoxious Khomeinist regime would be US involvement in “another ground war in the Middle East.”

He ignores the fact that forcing Iran through diplomatic action, sanctions and proximity pressures to abide by six UN resolutions could also be regarded as an alternative. In other words, preemptive surrender is not the only alternative to war.

Men vegrer seg mot å tro at en amerikansk president i sin andre periode kan ha et så urealistisk bilde av hva som foregår. Men slik ser det ut. Obama er oppslukt av sine egne forestillinger.

Hvis det er så ille som Taheri sier, kommer ikke Kongressen til å godta noen avtale. Den vil heller bli en skamstøtte over Obamas Midtøsten-politikk.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/04/translated-version-of-iran-deal-doesnt-say-what-obama-claims-it-does/

ANNONSE
Liker du det du leser? Vipps noen kroner til Document på 13629