Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the White House on Wednesday of misrepresenting the six-month landmark nuclear deal with Iran.
Amid hopes that it will pave the way for a broad settlement of a decade-old standoff and ease fears of a new Middle East war, the landmark deal was activated this week.
It reportedly states that Iran will be eliminating some of its enriched uranium stockpiles and will “dismantle some infrastructure that makes higher-level uranium enrichment possible.”
However, Zarif denies the Obama administration’s interpretation and representation of the treaty.
“The White House version both underplays the concessions and overplays Iranian commitment,” he said implying the U.S. doesn’t appear to be “sticking to what we agreed.”
Read More: What Is At Stake In Iran Nuclear Talks?
"The White House tries to portray it as basically a dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again," he said, urging CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto to read the actual text of the agreement.
"If you find a single, a single word, that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text, then I would take back my comment."
Last year, under its new leader Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian government reinforced that Tehran was enriching uranium for energy generation and other peaceful purposes only.
The Iranian President’s conciliatory tone and cooperation with world powers over the past several months led to the landmark nuclear deal that – if goes as expected – might suspend some economic sanctions on Iran in return.
If Iran doesn’t plan to dismantle any nuclear infrastructure – keeping Javad Zarif’s statement into consideration – then what consequence would this decision have on the nuclear pact?
Also, why is there such a great disconnect between Iran and the White House officials on the most important issue of the deal?