While US President Barack Obama’s administration has been so busily celebrating the framework deal sealed last Thursday with Iran over its nuclear program, official Iranian statements in Farsi appear to disprove Obama’s claims about what has or hasn’t been agreed.

The New York Post outlined on Saturday the different statements about the agreement. Those statements include one by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and EU foreign policy head Federica Mogherini, as well as an official Iranian text, a text in French, and US Secretary of State John Kerry’s summary which presents the framework as being a done deal.

The paper notes that Mogherini’s statement and the French text are so vague that they are “ultimately meaningless.”

Meanwhile the Iranian text is careful to state that nothing has been agreed to by the Islamic regime, and is titled as merely a press statement as opposed to the US text entitled “Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.”

Examining the bodies of the American and Farsi text, the paper found stark differences, including outright contradictions.

For one, while the US version says Iran agreed to various conditions, including reducing the number of centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,500, the Iranian text says Iran “shall be able to” carry out the various conditions. The caveat leaves Iran’s reduction of centrifuges, for example, as something it may do but has not committed to.

Likewise uranium enrichment in the covert Fordow reactor is to be halted for 15 years according to the US text, while the Farsi version says Iran “will be able to do” this, if it wants to.

Direct contradictions

But the differences are not just a matter of nuance and semantics; in certain places the texts present complete opposites. The US statement says Iran agreed to not use advanced centrifuges, which are ten times as effective as standard centrifuges.

The Iranian text says “on the basis of solutions found, work on advanced centrifuges shall continue on the basis of a 10-year plan,” directly contradicting the American version.

This point is crucial, as experts have anticipated that under the deal Iran can develop its centrifuge technology and reach a point where it can make a three week dash to obtain a nuclear weapon.

The Arak heavy water nuclear plant is another point of contention, with the US saying Iran has agreed to dismantle the core, while the Iranian text says the exact opposite; the plant will remain, and in fact be “updated and modernized.”

Another contradiction is found in US claims that there will be various limitations for different time periods, including a ten year limit on levels of uranium enrichment, a 15 year limit on building new facilities, and a 20 year limit on transparency guidelines.

All other versions, including the Iranian text, Mogherini’s Italian text, and the French text, do not give any reference to these figures.

Another difference between the US version and all others is that the US says Iran will take steps to reassure the world community that its nuclear project is not military, a reference to Iran’s development of missiles able to carry nuclear warheads.

None of the other versions mention this point.

And the US statements claim Iran will receive sanctions “relief,” with talk of phasing, even as Iran says the sanctions will be “immediately terminated,” a point which led Zarif to accuse the US of lying last week.

Obama’s false claims

The New York Post also pointed out three “outrageous claims” that Obama made when he presented the deal at the White House Rose Garden last Thursday, touting it as being an “historic” agreement.

One such claim was when Obama said that at the time he first took office, Iran had “thousands of centrifuges” which would now be cut to just over 6,000.

However, back in 2008 when Obama was first elected Iran only had 800 centrifuges. Under Obama’s two terms – and likely due to his policies vis-a-vis Iran – that figure has rapidly blossomed into the current 19,000.

Obama’s second claim was when he said the new framework plan blocks “all of Iran’s paths” to developing a nuclear weapon, going on to explain the three “paths.”

But in his very statements, he noted that even if the deal is implemented, Iran will still have a breakout capability of building a nuclear bomb in one year. His very statement proves those “blocked paths” would not stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear arsenal.

In a final claim, Obama said the US has only three options: reaching the deal he presented, continuing sanctions which he claimed wouldn’t do anything, or getting into “another ground war in the Middle East.”

And yet instituting a tougher sanctions regime in the international arena against Iran is an alternative that could force the Islamic regime into agreeing to a better deal, a point that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has raised repeatedly and emphasized in opposing the deal.