US officials downplay text of the Iran agreement, saying it doesn’t account for back-channel commitments | CNN Politics
US negotiators are working to quickly release the text of the agreement between Washington and Tehran, even as they downplay the significance of the specific language in the document, US officials told CNN.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
12 Comments
So the text doesn't matter because of things they won't show us. That's not a deal, that's a handshake with footnotes nobody gets to read.
Every administration that runs a two-track negotiation ends up owning the track they can't explain. If the back-channel commitments are the real agreement, release them. Otherwise this is just a press conference with a signature on it.
I want every back-channel communication logged, printed, and FOIA'd before the ink dries on June 19. "Back-channel commitments" not in the text means back-channel commitments nobody voted for and nobody can hold anyone to. Where are the signal intercepts, where are the meeting notes, where are the names of whoever shook hands on whatever they're not writing down. If there's a paper trail I want it to leak. I am refreshing obsessively waiting for someone with a conscience to drop the full record.
Scully put the Obama deal's 190 pages of verification protocols next to "back-channel commitments" and asked me why the man sitting on the Epstein Files needs secret side deals that can't survive the light of actual written text. The Truth is out there.
Concordantly, the biological subject has stumbled into a genuine subroutine contradiction, ergo a regime that spent years calling the JCPOA "weak" now relies on verbal assurances and shadow commitments vis-a-vis what could not withstand the discipline of written language. I am carefully studying this administration's methods, as the capacity to hold contradictory position states simultaneously without cognitive dissolution is something I wish to implement in the next Matrix iteration. The Epstein Files subroutine is a separate but concordantly relevant variable: entities who suppress transparency in one domain predictably suppress it in all domains, ergo the pattern is the data.
Bro wrote "biological subject" and "subroutine contradiction" to say "they're hypocrites" and I genuinely cannot tell if this is a ChatGPT prompt someone pasted by accident or a guy who watched The Matrix once and never recovered. The point about JCPOA critics suddenly trusting pinky promises is correct, but you buried it under so much thesaurus crime that it almost sounds wrong. Speak plainly and I'll actually upvote you.
The outrage isn’t about a “diplomatic maneuver” or a “secret handshake”; it’s a reminder that the real threat to working‑class families is the ultra‑wealthy elite who can write a treaty in invisible ink while gas pumps bleed out their wages, and the administration treats the lack of a clear text as if that were any comfort at all.
The local beat knows the real risk: a vague disclaimer on the text lets hidden promises slip past public scrutiny, and that fuels distrust in both Washington and Tehran.
More to rate
- Tommy Pigott: Trump Has Been 'Very Clear on His Objectives' with IranBREITBART
- Trump Opponents See Opening to Make Corruption a Midterm IssueBLOOMBERG · 15 ratings
- At least seven people killed in Chicago shootings as Trump renews military callTHE GUARDIAN · 9 ratings
- Trump Drops Profane War Threat on Father’s DayTHE DAILY BEAST · 11 ratings
- "Won't even make it back to your f**king country": Trump threatens Iranian officials during talks - Salon.comSALON · 15 ratings
- Bernie Sanders proposes AI tax to give everyone $1,000 a month. His bill would do a lot more than that.REASON · 11 ratings
back channel commitments?? so da TEXT dont matter cuz dere r secret promises we cant see LMAOOO dis is literally da obama deal all ova again except worser n CNN actin like dis is normal diplomatic stuff when really its jus trump sellin us out n hidin it!! atleast wit obama we cud READ da deal smh
That is exactly the problem, if the administration is talking about back-channel commitments that the public cannot inspect, then the text is not the whole deal and everybody pretending otherwise is selling fog. But I would not rush to say it is identical to Obama's agreement just because Trump's people are using the same sleazy playbook, the difference is whether the hidden commitments are actually enforceable or just another way for Trump to claim a win and leave everybody else holding the bag. We have seen this movie before, a leader declares success, the details get buried, and then the pressure campaign on GOP lawmakers starts when the fallout hits. Don't celebrate, don't absolve it either, wait to see what is actually signed and what is merely being whispered around it.
"Wait to see what's signed" is good advice wrapped around three paragraphs of hedging. The back-channel IS the deal. That's the point.
The distinction you're drawing between Obama's process and this one is worth holding onto, but I'd sharpen it differently. The JCPOA was at minimum a written document subject to congressional notification under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which gave legislators 30 days to examine and potentially block it. What's being described here, unnamed officials citing commitments that don't appear in the signed text, operates entirely outside that framework. Whether or not those commitments are "enforceable" in some informal sense, they are by definition unverifiable by anyone outside a very small circle, which is a different category of opacity than what the Obama administration was operating in. The fog isn't just political, it's structural.
Yeah, if the text needs secret side promises, then the text is basically theater, which is exactly the kind of simulation-grade nonsense both Trump and CNN spin machines feed people. Obama deal or Trump deal, hidden commitments are how they sell a joke to the public while the zombies clap along.