Why Is Obama's Fact Sheet Different From Iran's Fact Sheet?

This whole thing with the Iran talks is perplexing to say the least.

We have the MSM with all their stories and we have the politicians from all sides involved talking different stories.

You would think something this important would get top priority for accuracy and truth.

Seems it has become a war of wits with a whole bunch of contradictions in the "official" stories.

Could it be we are being conned by either side or by both sides?

It's like nobody knows who to "trust" anymore.


Why Is Obama's Fact Sheet Different From Iran's Fact Sheet?

On Friday Iran's foreign ministry released a fact sheet entitled "Summary of the Package of Joint Solutions for Reaching a Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action" it is Iran's version of the Fact Sheet published by the Obama Administration. The Strange part about it is that Iran's fact sheet is much different than the plan Obama is selling.

Below is the Iranian version of the talking points translated from the Farsi by Payam Mohseni. (Note: Bolded text is from original):

.. read the article to see what the differences are

This guy we call our president is a joke a really bad one where you hear crickets chirp.

It's because he is cooking up his own list of bullsh*t he is a very shady character and needs to be impeached! !
a reply to: xuenchen

a reply to: xuenchen

Could it be we are being conned by either side or by both sides?

News Flash (pardon the pun), but if it's the MSM you're talking about then you're ALWAYS getting conned

EDIT: In direct reference to your point, this article appeared on Democracy Now:

U.S., Iran Differ on Pace on Sanctions Relief under Final Deal

President Obama now faces the effort to sell the Iran deal to Congress as negotiators turn to a final agreement by June 30. But differences have already emerged in how the United States and Iran interpret the framework details. Speaking to Iranian state television, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said a final agreement would lead to the lifting of all international sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program. Zarif criticized the United States for releasing a "fact sheet" suggesting otherwise.

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif: "The Americans have compiled a fact sheet of their own making. Well, some of the points in their sheet might indeed coincide with the text [of the framework agreement], but some of them are plain contradictions. We have protested about it — we said that the Americans are misrepresenting their position. We’ve said: 'Why are you saying this?' I have even brought the issue up with Kerry himself." Despite the differences over the pace of sanctions relief, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz says the two countries’ public interpretations are consistent in "most dimensions."

Clearly still some issues to sort out.

My answer:

"Fact" sheet.


that pretty much sums it up.

a reply to: xuenchen

The crux of the issue is Iranian Ayatollah's have been writing fatwa's for hundreds of years and it shows. Yet, Ayatollah Obama has just six years of experience writing our fatwa's and it shows.

This time it's for nukes though so I am not laughing.

I mentioned this in another thread but usually this is done for domestic consumption. The US is interpreting things in a way it hopes will satisfy its skeptical citizens, while Iran is doing the same thing. The only way to know what's in the actual deal/framework would be to see the English & Farsi versions side by side. A lot of times, the wording (aka "legalese") is deliberately vague in key areas, to allow all sides involved to be able to interpret it how they want to their populations.

The issue of nuclear energy is an issue of extreme national pride for Iranians, since most of their technologies are self made. Think of it like America's space program during the '60s and early '70s. So Iran can't openly admit to their public that they're drastically scrapping their capacity to enrich fuel. Especially not because of outside pressure. It would be like if America agreed to scrap its space program in the '60s to calm Soviet & European fears over our intercontinental ballistic missile programs. In that hypothetical situation, instead of admitting it, NASA would probably tell us they ran into some technical difficulties & have to start from scratch.

a reply to: ATF1886

Mr. Obama is not my President; I impeached him with a scintilla of reasons to do so.

a reply to: xuenchen

Either one translates to "IRAN WILL GET NUKES". He has to sell this to Congress and needs to dazzle them with b.s..

originally posted by: ATF1886
This guy we call our president is a joke a really bad one where you hear crickets chirp.

It's because he is cooking up his own list of bullsh*t he is a very shady character and needs to be impeached! !
a reply to: xuenchen

I starred you, but honestly, you want super creepy biden in charge?

As soon as biden became the vice president it was assured Obama would never be impeached.

Call it the ultimate insurance policy.

The word 'FACT Sheet' is a misnomer. Obama doesn't know Sheet about Facts.
The whole deal is a charade.

a reply to: xuenchen

Another poster already said it but "fact sheet" means "fact" sheet. Each nation walked away from the talks with a deal they could live with, and from what we can tell it's largely a compromise. The US gave something up and gained something in return. Compromises aren't politically sexy though, because your political opponents will interpret them as a loss, and use what you gave up as proof of that. So the spin doctors goto work and try to make it look like a bigger win for their side. Iran is doing this with their fact sheet while the US is doing that with theirs.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: ATF1886

Mr. Obama is not my President; I impeached him with a scintilla of reasons to do so.

On what legal grounds did you do such a thing? What law did he break? When you impeached him, did you find him guilty?

Impeachment isn't a take back on a vote.

a reply to: Aazadan

I not convinced there is a deal.

Sounds more like each side is saying what it would take to make a deal.

The opposite comments about the sanctions is a tell tale sign of "maybe no deal".

There's nothing in writing or signed yet is there?

I predict the whole thing falls apart.

a reply to: xuenchen

Obama has a history of bold faced lies. Never in history has America had such a bold-faced liar in office

"The ACA will save American families $2500"
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"
etc

I am quite sure Iran's version is the truth.
Obama wants Iran to have the Bomb.

He wants Islamic nations to collectively be considered a superpower and wants to degrade America as much as possible

a reply to: Aazadan

"What law did he (Obama) break?"

Immigration law, to start. Abetting and aiding illegals is a felony. If an ordinary person does it, he goes to jail. Obama is doing it now, he is not merely using prosecutorial discretion, he is actively aiding illegals break US law.

Selling weapons, guns, to drug cartel for another (Fast and Furious).

Aiding the enemy ( Benghazi, supporting Muslim Brotherhood, supporting Islamic terrorists in Syria, etc) - treason

The list is long - Obama did far far worse than Nixon

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

I not convinced there is a deal.

Sounds more like each side is saying what it would take to make a deal.

The opposite comments about the sanctions is a tell tale sign of "maybe no deal".

There's nothing in writing or signed yet is there?

I predict the whole thing falls apart.

I agree. This little interlude of both sides waving their 'fact sheets' and saying "look at our progress" ...is about prolonging the deal-making period...for radically different reasons.

Obama wants an extension, so he doesn't have to admit his failure at the end of the time period he set.
Iran, so it can continue to spin centrifuges under protection from Israeli raids on their enrichment facilities.

The Iranians are concluding and stating publicy the details of the final agreement they know will happen and they have reason to believe it.

Source

According to the framework, sanctions imposed on Iran by the United Nations Security Council, the European Union and the US will be lifted.

None of the abovementioned has happened yet, however, with international ships beginning to enter into Iranian waters the final agreement would appear to have begun taking shape in anticipation and removal of sanctions.

ETA: The only problem with the facts is the president isnt stating them all. I don't think he's showing all his cards.

I suspect this entire "negotiating" is really being done by the Corporations with vested interests.

Many people think corporations and banks run the world trade scenarios.

Why would this be any different?

Maybe that's why we are seeing all the conflicting information on this very important topic.

Don't forget Russian and Chinese corporations are involved along with the "Western" corporations.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

I not convinced there is a deal.

Sounds more like each side is saying what it would take to make a deal.

The opposite comments about the sanctions is a tell tale sign of "maybe no deal".

There's nothing in writing or signed yet is there?

I predict the whole thing falls apart.

It's not signed yet, they have until I think June to do that, which means it will likely go right up until the deadline. What the US/Iran have done is they've compromised on all the major points so that each nation believes there's something valuable there, and we got just about what's expected on that front. What's left (and where you're likely to see the US take a beating) is the small details. The problem is that when you isolate a nation you lose leverage with them. The only power the US has coming into these negotiations is sanctions and we can only give those up once while Iran asks for 5 or 10 things.

But, the fundamental principal behind the negotiations is a good one. Following our current strategy, war with Iran is inevitable. We can push it back for 5, 10, or 15 years by opposing them but eventually they will get enough fissile material to make a nuclear weapon. This deal prevents them from stockpiling any material for as long as the deal is good. It also creates a multinational coalition so that we can offer more trading partners to them if they comply giving them an incentive to go along with us.

We'll probably give up a lot of small things in the negotiations from this point on, but really those don't matter because the major point of preventing Iran from getting a weapon takes precedence.

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Aazadan

"What law did he (Obama) break?"

Immigration law, to start. Abetting and aiding illegals is a felony. If an ordinary person does it, he goes to jail. Obama is doing it now, he is not merely using prosecutorial discretion, he is actively aiding illegals break US law.

Selling weapons, guns, to drug cartel for another (Fast and Furious).

Aiding the enemy ( Benghazi, supporting Muslim Brotherhood, supporting Islamic terrorists in Syria, etc) - treason

The list is long - Obama did far far worse than Nixon

None of what you said is worthy of impeachment. Illegal government actions are not an impeachable offense, they're something you sue the government over. Impeachment requires Obama to personally break the law, not for his office to break the law. They are very different things.