The draft nuclear agreement between Iran and the United Kingdom, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, was announced today after many missed deadlines.

While Hillary Clinton has endorsed today’s deal, her official comments on the nascent deal lacked substance. However, in previous statements Clinton offered more explicit expectations for any deal with Iran.

Under today’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran is allowed uranium enrichment up to 3.67% for 15 years. Clinton, however, called for “so little enrichment or no enrichment … for a long period of time” because she believed “any enrichment will trigger an arms race in the Middle East.” Notably, Saudi Arabia and other Arab stateshave already said they will “match” Iran’s enrichment capabilities.

Another area of contention for Clinton is Iran’s breakout time. Clinton has called for a breakout time of over a year, but the “limits imposed by today’s agreement impose abreakout time of only one year.”

Evoking bipartisan concern in the United States is the ”contentious” arms embargo. According to The New York Times, restrictions on missiles would end in eight years and a “similar ban on the purchase and sale of conventional weapons would be removed in five years,” but, especially concerning, is that both could be lifted earlier. Democrats are said to be “worrying” over the arms embargo, and several in the Senate indicated they could withhold their support of a deal that lifted the embargo. Clinton has so far been silent on how the US should approach the arms embargo in the nuclear agreement.

Finally, Clinton called for a deal that “imposes an intrusive inspection program with no sites off limits.” Although Clintonclaimed that today’s deal included “the access for inspections and the transparency that was absolutely necessary,” The Wall Street Journal reports it is “unlikely” that the IAEA will “have access anytime and anywhere to Iran’s nuclear sites.” In addition, a New York Times
report notes it is also “unclear whether the inspectors would be able to interview the scientists and engineers” who were key to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards’ “effort … to design a weapon that Iran could manufacture in short order.”

But unfortunately for Clinton, despite whatever rhetoric she ultimately comes up with to justify her support for the agreement, her previous qualifications for an agreement with Iran were not fully met with today’s deal. Indeed, Clinton will “own the agreement” that is being frowned upon by many in her own party, as Clinton is said to have “worked in harmony” on Iran with Obama during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Two of the nation’s top Democrats, President Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren, are calling each other liars in the press over granting the president fast-track authority for trade deals.

Warren said the trade negotiations “could undermine the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.” Obama shot back that Warren is “absolutely wrong.”

Read more at America Rising.

Joseph Nye, the author of Hillary Clinton’s 2011 TIME 100 profile and a former Defense Department official in the Clinton Administration, recently told an Iranian journalist that “US policies toward Iran won’t change” if Hillary Clinton is elected President.

Hillary Clinton already wrongly took credit for the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table, but when considering the headlines Obama’s policies towards Iran have produced, such as “Iran Is Already Winning,” “[Iran Foreign Minister] Zarif Stresses Benefits To Iran Of Framework Nuclear Deal,” and “The Big Sell: Iran Touts Nuke Deal Terms, As US Tries To Claim Win,” this is a claim that should be concerning.