The Iran deal: it’s no big deal
Check this out [hat tip: commenter “sdferr”]:
President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.
“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.
Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.
As we parents used to say while watching our sons’ Little League games: good eye, Mike Pompeo, good eye!
I guess the administration thought no one would ever notice. And not too many did—for which I can’t blame them, because the audacity of this move is a bit astounding, even for Obama and Kerry.
So, what is the highly vaunted Iran deal? We already knew it was not a treaty; that would have required Congressional approval. We kind of thought it was an executive agreement, didn’t we? And it is an executive agreement—it’s just that all the “agreeing” seems to have been on the Obama side. We also already knew that, as an executive agreement, a subsequent president could change it or do away with it if he/she so desired, although that might be awkward. And we certainly knew that, even if signed by Iran (which I would imagine most people thought it had been), Iran would breach it without a moment’s hesitation if it wanted to, and no international tribunal saying it was “legally binding” would be able to enforce it.
It sounds as though Pompeo was on the ball with this one:
“The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose ”” and ramp up ”” our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments,” Frifield wrote to Pompeo.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani discouraged his nation’s parliament from voting on the nuclear deal in order to avoid placing legal burdens on the regime. “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to [and passed by] parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,” Rouhani said in August. “Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”
I doubt that Iran thinks we (and Europe) are prepared to re-impose sanctions if they broach the deal’s conditions. And once the money has been freed under the deal, they’ve gotten quite a bit of what they wanted anyway.
This is HUGE. The Iran deal isn’t even a signed contract!
On top of that, Iran has to accomplish a large number of “punch list” items by December 15, 2015.
The candidate that brings the hammer down on December 16 will have a great issue. America won’t have to “tear up” the deal as there was no contract in the first place. Never signed and a material failure of consideration!
Can’t help but agree Cornhead, it’s huge, but in many more ways than I care to count.
On the positive or beneficial side, what if, say, Americans reflect on the question “Why?”? Why is this? Why has this terrible non-deal been purposely produced by our ClownDisaster’s administration; why fashioned in this way? Alighting upon answers to those questions may be an highly unhappy event for them, if yet drawing together many peculiarly contradictory and heretofore unexplained phenomena under one unifying scheme.
Sdferr:
Sham deal was done so that Obama could return billions to Iran and some big corporations could sell Iran stuff. Collateral benefit to Barry are contributions from said corporations to the Obama library in Chicago.
Obama’s intent has never been to establish a firm commitment with Iran. His intent is twofold; avoiding the necessity for military confrontation with Iran. Delaying Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons capability, until he’s out of office. What secret understandings with the Mullahs might Kerry have arranged to that end?
If Hussein had unilaterally given Iran funding and tech specs for a nuke, people would have begun to suspect certain things. So this “deal” is a pretext, to justify that they “got something in return”. So that Democrat judas goats in America can claim that “America benefited” and “progressed”.
I dunno. Somehow I think Europe might be a bit more willing to look askance at Islamic terror-supporting states now, which Iran certainly is.
They might vote to reimpose sanctions. (though it still won’t do any good)
I dunno. Somehow I think Europe might be a bit more willing to look askance at Islamic terror-supporting states now, which Iran certainly is.
They might vote to reimpose sanctions (though it still won’t do any good).
Oops.
Frifield isn’t wrong, but this does make a gray legal area even grayer and further reveals the sloppiness of the process.
What I wonder: how can that not be in every newspaper front cover in the world?
I was googling… only reported by the few ones (breitbart and so) that are usually dismissed as extreme right wing.
People realize how important is that?
Yann Says:
November 26th, 2015 at 1:42 pm
What I wonder: how can that not be in every newspaper front cover in the world?
I was googling… only reported by the few ones (breitbart and so) that are usually dismissed as extreme right wing.
People realize how important is that?
***
Surely you are not suffering under the delusion that DeMedia would actually report something reflecting negatively on their Beloved Leader?
@AesopFan
But this is new.
Until now, some pieces of news appeared only in those “extreme right” few media, like the volunteer gang raped by inmigrants in Calais and that was pressed by her colleagues in the humanitarian activist organization to shut up the mouth and not say anything.
But you can argue (those cases) that it is event-chronicle and belong to tabloids. I disagree, since those are not random event but are part of how Europa and America are evolving (or regressing).
However, this is a very serious information about one of the most important event in last years. Not seeing in in newspapers is just… surreal.
Not seeing in in newspapers is just… surreal.
Not for people that have learned how to use mind control. It’s not surreal, it’s just effective. Like your microwave. Invisible “magical waves”.
Yann, if you got your news about Iraq from the Left’s media, you were conned. That’s just how it works, and while that’s an old example, it is the same SOP as this event.