I concede that point. I just wonder why so many of you are acting as if the administration’s interpretation of the framework is false. We’re making progress, a couple of people have said the Iranian version of the framework is unacceptable. Anyone want to stand by the administration and draw a line in the sand that the framework as they interpreted it is the minimum we can accept?
If not, then you know that they were spinning.
If this is “spinning”, then all negotiations forever and all time are spinning. Part of negotiating is not letting your opponent know how far you’re willing to go, what your limits are, etc. Whatever Iran says publicly is not actually what they’re saying privately, and doesn’t tell us much about what kind of deal they’re actually willing to make. The same is true of the US, and the same is true of every good negotiator ever.
They both agree a framework was agreed upon. The fact that they’re disagreeing publicly about what’s in that framework is pretty expected, and doesn’t actually tell us much about what will be in any potential final deal.
They are disagreeing on what was already agreed to. Which means either one side is lying, or there is not actually a framework.
No, it means that both sides are still negotiating and using public statements to try and manipulate world opinion (which is part of such a public negotiation).
So the framework doesn’t actually contain anything? You’ll have to define framework for me then.
That’s what you’re saying. I think you’re spinning so much that you forgot which direction is up.
No – but as far as I know, the specific text and details of the framework have not been released. All we know of the framework is what the two parties say about it, and it’s an expected part of negotiation that they will each describe it to the public differently, in ways more favorable to their own goals and agenda.
And what’s to stop them from being so far apart on a final agreement? If the framework is written down, then that means there are words on paper that mean things. If they don’t agree on that, how will they agree on what the final agreements says?
Will the agreement be released to the public?
Hopefully, both sides’ desires to actually get to an agreement. But they might not reach one. We’ll see.
What they’re publicly saying doesn’t necessarily match what they privately believe. All this public disagreement and teeth-gnashing is very likely part of the manipulation of opinion which is part of negotiation, and much of it is probably just mean for domestic Iranian political purposes. This should all be expected – and up until a final agreement is signed, if one is signed, I expect to see a lot more of this.
I don’t see how any final, signed agreement would not be released to the public. I’ve never heard of that happening with an international agreement/treaty/etc.
There might not be an agreement. If any of the parties – Iran, the United States, whomever – either disagrees on the principles they have reportedly agreed to in the framework, or introduce new demands, the talks could still crater.
The framework is not a final agreement. It’s a set of principles that is supposedly agreed to by all parties, which will be flushed out and details added in, to produce a written agreement this summer.
It’s clear you’ve read a lot about this topic. I’m not sure why this has to be explained to you. Have you ever had a business deal in which you and another party stated the broad outlines of a deal, shook hands on it, and then had your lawyers (or whomever) work to write everything down in a specific document that would later be signed? The process of writing everything down, getting into the nitty gritty, working out the details is never a simple process. Deals can fall apart if the general principles agreed to earlier are changed, if someone attempts to insert new controversial issues, etc. That’s what’s happening here. I’m puzzled why this is so confusing to you.
The Fourth Protocol. 
Actually, secret treaties were fairly common before WWI. Sykes-Picot and the Treaty of London (1915) were kept secret for some time.
It isn’t much done these days, thank Og. It would be a really dumb thing to do. (Arms for Hostages, cough cough.)
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told President Reuven Rivlin on Tuesday that reaching an agreement with Iran might prevent further development of Iran’s nuclear capability. However, she added, the current reality shows no promise of an agreement.
I hope she’s wrong, but it’s entirely possible that no agreement will be reached. For the sake of Israel and the rest of the region, I hope one (it doesn’t need to be said but I’ll say it anyway – I mean a good agreement) is reached.