Skip to comments.State Department: Iran Never Signed Nuclear Deal, Which Isn't 'Legally Binding'
Posted on 11/30/2015 9:32:10 AM PST by Kaslin
This story broke last week, just as millions of Americans were tuning out of the news cycle for Thanksgiving. Given the seriousness of the subject matter, it deserves a re-up. National Review reports:
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.
Oh. Joel Gehrke notes that Iran's president -- much like our own -- strongly discouraged his country's legislature from voting on the agreement at all, arguing that parliamentary approval would "create an obligation" and impose an "unnecessary legal restriction" on the regime. Rouhani warned that passage would force him to sign the document, which he'd avoided doing. A vote was held anyway; the deal was approved, 161-59. It apparently remains unsigned. (The United States Congress never formally weighed in on the terrible deal because Senate Democrats repeatedly obstructed any vote, in order to shield President Obama from the political humiliation of explicitly overruling strong bipartisan opposition). The vote in Tehran was purely symbolic, of course. The 'Supreme Leader' runs the show in that country, and he allowed his so-called Guardian Council to sign off on the accord, guaranteeing its adoption. But according to our State Department, that "adoption" wasn't technically binding under international law. The agreement represents "political commitments" secured by negotiators, we're told, "and is not a signed document." Question: If this pact isn't binding or even signed, wouldn't the resulting flexibility cut both ways? Couldn't the next American president simply tear up the empty signature page of the deal upon entering office and be rid of it? Maybe so, legally speaking. But Allahpundit lays out the grim reality that the die has already been cast:
We're lifting $100 billion in sanctions in exchange for a legally binding promise of … nothing. The flip side of that, I guess, is that the deal's not binding on us either; if the next president or even Obama himself wants to reimpose sanctions on a whim, that's fair game. The problem with that logic, though, is that no one believes our European partners, who crave renewed access to Iran's markets (and vice versa), will reinstate sanctions unless Iran cheats flagrantly and egregiously on the deal, to the point where it would humiliate the EU internationally to look the other way. One of Iran's core goals in all this, re-opening its trade relationship with Europe, will be achieved whether or not the deal is binding. And once achieved, it'll be nearly irreversible...there's a difference between a country voting to implement an agreement voluntarily and making a binding promise to another country that they'll implement it by signing a statement to that effect. In theory, the latter gives the treaty partner some legal recourse international sanctions, most likely — that the former doesn't. Like I said above, though, international sanctions are already almost certainly off the table, in which case what is Iran's formal promise via signature really worth? Especially when — wait for it — everyone expects them to cheat regardless.
A video reportedly produced by the office of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and posted to social media Tuesday blames the United States and its allies for the Paris terror attacks. The video, posted to a Facebook page affiliated with Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and first reported by the Middle East Media Research Institute, explains that the U.S. created the Islamic State to advance its own agenda...The narrator further alleges that the U.S. trained moderate Syrian rebels to "join" the Islamic State in the Middle East and purposefully dropped weapons into the hands of IS terrorists there. He also suggests that IS has been benefiting "financially" from Western media reports. The video also includes footage of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivering congressional testimony about the rise of the Taliban in 2009 during which she stated, "Let's remember here, the people we are fighting today, we funded." "Of course, no one should be surprised by U.S. support for ISIS, as this was not unprecedented and American politicians had already admitted having supported al Qaeda," the narrator says in the video. The video concludes with the narrator appearing to question al Qaeda's involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
IOW, IT’S WORTHLESS.........................
And that is factual
Never send an inbred doofus like Kerry and a drug addled man-child like Obama to do the job of real men.
Not binding, but Barry big ears will still try to enforce it unidirectionally upon the US.
Another SELLOUT by the Muslim & the Broadbeam in the White Hut.
John Kerry should also be tried for treason, along with Obama.
Well we can blame those idiots who voted for them
It was only ever about giving the mullahs the money.
Not to the Iranians.
I gather Obama is going to essentially do everything he promised in exchange for nothing from Iran. Damn good deal for them.
It has a lot of worth to Caliph Obama and Iran.
It’s less than worthless and downright destructive if you’re pro America.
And our leadership will meekly bend over and coo lovingly at King Mwanga II, er, Brak Ubama.
we release $150 billion and obama pardoned the leader of the al buds force who killed and maimed thousands OF USA TROOPS IN IRAQ...
in return for NOTHING
how is this not treason....... ???????
It’s not completely worthless. Iran is getting billions released.
At the end of the day, to finance terror was all B.O. wanted anyway. So....job well done in his feeble mind.
Oh it is worth quote a lot, ... to the Iranians.
It’s worth $150,000,000,000.
As Donald Trump points out, it doesn’t matter what they talk about now, the money’s gone!
Now Iran can purchase nuclear weapons and fund terrorism all across the globe courtesy of the traitor in the White House.
But I don’t hold anything against the traitor in the White House as he’s only doing what his puppetmasters are making him do. I hold it against the GOP Congress who lacks courage to stand up to him and the national media who protect him.
So in other words, not even the Iranians agreed to this crappy agreement.
Key question: did the US release the $$$?
Look at the propaganda now filling up the news-space:
The press has got its marching orders to downplay the Iran Deal as the enormous mistake it is.
We’ll see more of the national media trying to reshape public opinion today and tomorrow.
> “Key question: did the US release the $$$?”
Of course not, because the Iran Deal is not a bad deal afterall and Obama, the dems and the GOPe would never allow $150,000,000,000 to be released etc. etc. etc.
And Bergdahl was a patriot ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.