So why all the hoopla by Obama and Kerry if it's not really a done deal yet? Obviously, because they expect to make it a done deal. But wait!
"...underlining years of mutual distrust, [Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas] Araqchi said the deal was not legally binding and Iran had the right to undo it if the powers failed to hold up their end of the bargain.
"'The moment we feel that the opposite side is not meeting its obligations or its actions fall short, we will revert to our previous position and cease the process,' [the Iranian state-run news service] Fars quoted Araqchi, a senior member of Iran's negotiating team, as saying. 'We are in no way optimistic about the other side - we are pessimistic - and we have told them that we cannot trust you.'"
Let's look at some of the expectations the Iranians are expressing.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Iranian president Rouhani indicated "100 per cent" that dismantling of nuclear facilities was a red line for his country.
In other words, they have no intention of dismantling. Never.
Iran's nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi concurs with regard to no dismantling of nuclear facilities, but he carries it one step further.
Quoted by the website of state broadcaster IRIB, Salehi declared:
"Your actions and words show you don't want us to have the Arak heavy water reactor which means you want to deprive us of our rights.
"But you should know that it is a red line which we will never cross, likewise enrichment."
The source is AFP:
AFP, citing the official Iranian news agency, also reported on something Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Friday.
This approach had been anticipated in the first analyses after the accord was announced. It's a logical way to go and I hope we'll see some badly needed success here.
But I must make one observation: According to the Times, Israeli sources are saying that "Israeli intelligence was seeking to uncover clandestine activity in three areas of Iran's nuclear program - hidden uranium enrichment sites, ballistic missiles and bomb design."
Hidden uranium enrichment sites, utilized for enrichment after the accord was in effect, would constitute a breach of the accord. But neither ballistic missile development nor work on bomb design would. To my understanding, that's one of the weaknesses in the accord: the enrichment is supposed to halt temporarily, but continuing work on the platforms for delivering a nuclear device is not prohibited.
Uncovering activity in these areas - if that, indeed, is what Israeli intelligence will be looking at - would demonstrate true Iranian intentions, but not breach of the accord. Exposing a breach would be more powerful.
"...the Iranian regime's threat to the entire region and internationally has never been solely that of a nuclear bomb. Rather, it is a threat because it is an ideological Islamic revolutionary regime, that openly threatens the other regimes in the Middle East with ideological incitement and subversive activity. It does this using military and ideological organizations, out of a desire to export the Islamic revolution and undermine the existing regimes...
"...With regard to this comprehensive threat posed by the Iranian regime, the Geneva agreement constitutes phenomenal reinforcement for Iran's geostrategic might vis-a-vis the countries of the region, and enhances Iran's efforts at subversion in the region and internationally...
"...this historic move by Obama will lead to regional instability. It will not assuage the existing tensions and conflicts; it will only inflame them, and this exacerbation will take the form of violent actions both in the region and outside it."
A very serious assessment by a very serious agency.