Diplomats lie. They don't lie legally and could never be prosecuted for "lying under oath" or any related concept; they lie by implication and invited assumptions on the part of the listener (or reader). They, and their Masters, know and depend on others who wish a particular outcome to see and hear what they wish to be true as existing in any agreement or pronouncement. It has been going on for centuries at least.
That does NOT make it right!
It does NOT make it right when the people doing it, are doing it to citizens of countries to which the perpetrators have sworn an oath to protect and defend.
Compounding the danger to all normal citizens of any country is that the Masters that direct Diplomats are usually Politicians. Mark Twain once said, "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." As I recall, both our current "President" and our Secretary of State at the negotiating table are past members of Congress, although it seems that the category could be applied to a greater and greater percentage of all people who are employed by our Government in general, whether in Congress or in any other branch of the Federal Government. And it seems even more and more applicable as we remember just how many criminals are never caught or convicted, much less accused.
There have been articles in great number is various publications that have pointed out the lies that have been perpetrated in claiming what the proposed agreement does and does not do. It is clear that one of the things that is is most unlikely to do is prevent Iran from developing the capability to make and deploy a nuclear weapon. As to the details withing the agreement, those supporting it are raising as many verbal statements and promises that allegedly clarify actual clauses in the agreement that would, if true and enforceable, improve any interpretation of the actual writing. But interpretation is exactly what those who wish to avoid conduct the agreement seems to mandate use to "skate" without consequences.
There are lies in the goals to be achieved as parties prepare to negotiate. Remember the one about preventing Iran from becoming a Nuclear Power? That one seems now not to be remembered, although at the time it was promised as an absolute.
And current articles in publication and by people on multiple ideological tracks point out the lies and issuance of invitations to make positive assumptions even as a careful examination of the sentence and phrase used shows no such enforceable promise.
While my angst will no doubt force a revisit to this subject, let me make this last point today: Kerry, in sworn testimony before the Senate earlier this week pointed out that our "allies" were close to abandoning the current sanctions that he claimed were so effective in bringing Iran to the negotiating table and also that no military action was possible that would have stopped Iran's progress toward Nuclear capability. Yet, when pressed on just what responses would be available should Iran violate or fail to abide by the letter and intent of the agreement, he claimed that sanctions would "snap" back.
The term "snap" implies an immediacy that clearly does not exist. And he already claimed that there was no military option. So...we have our own Government signing an agreement that provides Iran with exactly what our Government promised us...the American People...that it would not allow. Further, that our Government believes that in addition to being powerless to keep its promise to us (no real surprise there!) it is inferring an Iranian "trust me" promise in the face of a track record of Iranian perfidy.
Except when I am the subject, I can appreciate a really good con job even as I strive to punish it. But this does not qualify as "really good" and smacks of coarse, in-artful and even disrespectful treatment of the American Public.