U.N. Unanimously Approves Iran Deal, Makes It International Law
[guest post by Dana]
In spite of the concerns and objections made by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, President Obama stepped on and over an increasingly irrelevant Congress and presented the Iran deal before the U.N. for a vote. Today, the U.N. gave its approval:
The U.N. Security Council endorsed the landmark nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers and adopted a series of measures leading to the end of U.N. sanctions that have hurt the Iranian economy.
The U.S.-drafted resolution was approved in a unanimous vote also provides a mechanism for U.N. sanctions to “snap back” in place if Iran fails to meet its obligations.
As explained:
CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk explained that, while Monday’s vote does make the Iran nuclear deal international law, full implementation of the measures will be delayed for 90 days, to allow for the U.S. Congress’ consideration as promised by the Obama administration.
Falk explained that while Congress cannot block the implementation of the deal, if the legislative body votes against it and has enough votes to override a promised veto from President Obama, it could cause problems.
A U.S. official told CBS News that American law doesn’t “trump” U.N. resolutions, but if Congress were to vote against the measure — and garner enough votes to override a presidential veto — lawmakers could stop U.S. sanctions being lifted, which could prompt Iran to declare the U.S. as non-compliant with the terms of the deal and to back out.
If U.S. lawmakers were to decide after Monday’s vote that they wanted changes to the terms of the agreement, it would essentially be too late, because it would require the Security Council to propose a new resolution — and there would likely be little appetite for such deliberations among the other negotiating partners.
The critical impact of this vote cannot be overstated. Earlier this year Andrew McCarthy warned of what would happen after Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif spilled the beans of the deal:
According to Zarif, the deal under negotiation “will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the U.S., but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.” He hoped it would “enrich the knowledge” of the 47 senators [whos signed the Cotton Letter] to learn that “according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement.” To do so would be “a material breach of U.S. obligations,” rendering America a global outlaw….
Clearly, Obama and the mullahs figure they can run the following stunt: We do not need another treaty approved by Congress because the United States has already ratified the U.N. charter and thus agreed to honor Security Council resolutions. We do not need new statutes because the Congress, in enacting Iran-sanctions legislation, explicitly gave the president the power to waive those sanctions. All we need is to have the Security Council issue a resolution that codifies Congress’s existing sanctions laws with Obama’s waiver. Other countries involved in the negotiations — including Germany, Russia, and China, which have increasingly lucrative trade with Iran — will then very publicly rely on the completed deal. The U.N. and its army of transnational-progressive bureaucrats and lawyers will deduce from this reliance a level of global consensus that incorporates the agreement into the hocus-pocus corpus of customary law. Maybe they’ll even get Justice Ginsburg to cite it glowingly in a Supreme Court ruling. Voila, we have a binding agreement — without any congressional input — that the United States is powerless to alter under international law.
The U.S. Constitution could not be reached for comment.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (86e864) — 7/20/2015 @ 10:37 amI loathe them
JD (86b296) — 7/20/2015 @ 10:50 amThe U.N. should find a new home.
mg (31009b) — 7/20/2015 @ 10:53 amA more balanced and fair place, such as Africa.
No! The ratification of the U.N Charter did not make U.N. resolutions the Supreme Law of the United States. Nor are memoranda of understanding between the President and Congress U.S. law unless ratified by the Senate. This is the relevant part, if true: We do not need new statutes because the Congress, in enacting Iran-sanctions legislation, explicitly gave the president the power to waive those sanctions. In which case, Congress will have to pass new legislation over the SCOAMF’s veto.
nk (dbc370) — 7/20/2015 @ 10:56 amEee! … memoranda of understanding between the President and *foreign governments* ….
Freudian slip.
nk (dbc370) — 7/20/2015 @ 10:57 amAnd the GOP has collectively retired to their fainting couch.
DNF (208255) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:09 amI told ya’ll before, Obama is looking to be the first (and last) American to be head of the UN.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:14 amActually, the Congress can void all of this by a simple majority vote. Just declare war.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:56 amA law is only as good as the willingness and ability of the drafting entity to enforce it. The UN does not enforce its own international law, it does not exist as an independent sovereign. UN mandates exist by mutual cooperation of its members, it has no standing enforcement authority (such as police, military, and judiciary).
The United States is a sovereign nation. When the U.S. government expresses a will, it has the ability to enforce that will, either against its own citizens by police or against other nations by military might.
The U.S. is subject to some international law, but only those laws that it has agreed to, by treaty, follow. Any treaties require the support of Congress. So the only “international law” that applies to the U.S. is the law that the U.S. (through it’s elected representatives in Congress) agrees applies to it.
In other words, the United Nations cannot create a binding “international law.” They can ask the U.S. to enter into a treaty, but that requires congressional approval.
egd (1ad898) — 7/20/2015 @ 12:00 pmthere’s no danger of the cowardly supine failmerican Congress not approving this
Corker’s gonna get his genocide
done and done
happyfeet (a037ad) — 7/20/2015 @ 12:03 pmSorry, this article is 99% nonsense.
1. As the article points out, the president has always had the power to waive the sanctions against Iran
2. Congress has always had the power to change that law and forbid him from waiving them, or to re-enact them if he does waive them — provided, of course, that it has the numbers to override his veto. As far as I know the recent Cotton Act did absolutely nothing to change that, and I remain puzzled by what the whole point was.
3. Yes, treaties, including the UN Charter, are the law of the land in the USA, and under that charter Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter 7 (but not other chapters) are binding on all UN members. ut there are a number of things about this that many people seem not to understand:
3a. First, treaties rank equal with statutes. When Congress makes a law, it overrides all previous laws that it contradicts; that includes treaties. Some laws (e.g. RFRA) say that all future laws shall be interpreted as not contradicting them unless they explicitly say they are, and treaties are in the same category: if it’s possible to intepret a law so as not to contradict an earlier treaty the courts must do so, but if a law makes it explicit that Congresss is aware of the earlier treaty and chooses to ignore it, the newer law overrides the older treaty. So even if the Security Council were to forbid UN members from imposing sanctions on Iran, Congress would still have the power to impose them anyway. (I have come across people who were convinced that treaties rank higher than statutes, or even higher than the constitution! I don’t know where they got such an idea.)
3b. The UN resolution does not in fact forbid anyone from imposing sanctions on Iran. It merely lifts the sanctions the Security Council imposed in the first place, leaving each country free to lift them or not, as it pleases. Obviously the US Congress has no power to prevent other countries from lifting their sanctions.
3c. Even if neither of the previous two items were true, Security Council Chapter 7 resolutions are not self-enacting. In other words, they are US law, but they don’t say “a ban on trading with Iran is hereby imposed”, or “…lifted”, they say “all members shall legislate to ban trade with Iran”, or “…to lift” such a ban. If the Security Council says everyone shall ban trade with, e.g., Israel, and Congress doesn’t pass such a ban, then the fact that the resolution is US law doesn’t prevent anyone from continuing to trade with Israel. The only entity “breaking the law”, so to speak, would be the USA itself, and there would be no way to make it “keep the law”.
4. If Congress reimposes the Iran sanctions, or prevents 0bama from lifting them in the first place, what happens? See above: it “could prompt Iran to declare the U.S. as non-compliant with the terms of the deal and to back out”. Hooray! That’s exactly what we want, isn’t it? To kill the deal. And if the deal is killed, then perhaps our allies will also retain or reimpose sanctions. We could even argue to Russia and China that the UN resolution lifting sanctions is dead, and the sanctions are still in place, but of course they would ignore us and begin trading with Iran, and we can’t stop them; but we never could stop them in the first place, UN resolution or not.
In any event, it is certainly not true that reimposing or retaining sanctions would “render America a global outlaw”. That’s just too silly for words.
Milhouse (7d5ad7) — 7/20/2015 @ 12:07 pm1. How would that void this deal?
Milhouse (7d5ad7) — 7/20/2015 @ 12:12 pm2. In any case, the president can veto it, and it would
take 2/3 in each house to override.
Except that the USA has already bound itself by treaty to obey all Security Council Chapter 7 resolutions. But see above: the only entity bound by this obligation is Congress, and if it chooses to ignore its obligation nobody can force its hand; in any case Congress can override any treaty, exactly as it can override any statute; in this case the US has not required any country to allow trade with Iran, it has merely allowed them to do so.
Milhouse (7d5ad7) — 7/20/2015 @ 12:16 pmneo-con war monger vermon lose again along with the bottle deposit crook netanyahu!
peace now (1709ba) — 7/20/2015 @ 12:37 pmare you sending coded messages to the other members of your terrorist cell?
that’s kinda frowned on
happyfeet (a037ad) — 7/20/2015 @ 12:43 pmI repeat my request for anyone who can explain to me what the recent “deal” between the president and Congress achieved. In what way was the state of affairs different after it passed than before? I just don’t understand it.
Milhouse (7d5ad7) — 7/20/2015 @ 12:49 pmThe unfreezing of the Shah’s loot seized in 1979, and in other countries the Ayatollahs’ seized in 2009.
nk (dbc370) — 7/20/2015 @ 12:56 pmThat was in the Cotton deal?! Or are you talking about the current deal with Iran? I want to know what the recent deal between the President and Congress, which received so much publicity, actually did. Because as far as I can tell it left things exactly as they were before.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 1:16 pmPut your tin foil hat back on, Perry you’re ranting like an idiot.
Not a vile hater (f4eb27) — 7/20/2015 @ 1:20 pmUsing this as a precedent, what else can the Dear Leader mandate for America via UN vote.
Bill Cook (c3d0d5) — 7/20/2015 @ 1:22 pmI’m not going to bother to address all the nonsense in Milhouse’s comments. Let’s just cut to the chase.
With this UN vote, all UN sanctions are repealed and history is rewritten. Iran has now never been in violation of any UN sanction concerning it’s nuclear program, conventional weapons, or ICBM developments.
This is how the Obama administration planned it all along. They are gaslighting the entire country, and in particular Congress, when they claim the conventional weapons and ICBM sanctions were in place merely to bring the Iranians to the negotiating table over its nuclear program. This was never true. Those sanctions were in place because Iran was in violation of previous UNSC resolutions. Before this rewrite of history Iran had to be in compliance with those earlier resolutions. Negotiations over its nuclear program had nothing to do with it.
Now everything has been erased. It’s like it never happened.
The above is the only snapback provision in the entire document. If Congress doesn’t submit to the coordinated extortion of the WH and its clients the Mullahs, then Iran can unilaterally declare the JCPOA null and void (amazing how deferential Obama is to the countries where his and uber-President Jarrett’s true loyalties lie). So Congress can either submit, or it can exercise its constitutional prerogatives. But if it does, Iran can immediately purchase and/or produce anything it wants. It was never in violation of any treaty, according to the UNSC.
In essence, the US will not be isolated and Iran will not. This is what the traitor in the WH and his cabinet of fellow travelers have wrought.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 1:51 pmThis post at Legal Insurrection includes an excellent interview with Elizabeth Chryst who talks about how congress has been losing ground to executive actions and treaties since FDR. It is worth a look. This is all very confusing.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/07/are-senate-republicans-really-the-bad-guys-in-iran-deal-fiasco/
elissa (8a891b) — 7/20/2015 @ 1:54 pmIf this foul anti-American administration had been as deferential to Congress as to the the Iranian Majlis (parliament) they would have made these key provisions about voiding all those UNSC resolutions provisional. That’s what they did in deference to Iran. Key provisions concerning inspections are provisional until the Majlis approves them.
But Obama only became President of us, his enemies, so he could help his friends. So why would he do that?
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 1:55 pm@22, the audio at the link is an hour and 26 minutes long but well worth the time.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 1:58 pmWhich is exactly how it was before it passed. So what did it achieve?
I don’t think this is true. Presidents have always had the power to make whatever private agreements they liked with whomever they liked. Nothing in the constitution says they can’t, and it’s obvious that they can, but these agreements are just that. They have no force of law. Subsequent presidents can continue to honor them, or not, as they wish.
I don’t see how. There is no treaty, so there’s nothing for them to reject. Remember what a treaty is in US law: a law passed by the president and 2/3 of the senate, without consulting the House. That’s all it is.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 2:29 pmBecause you have no answer to any of it. It’s all clearly true.
Since when? The resolution doesn’t say that. The sanctions did exist, and now they don’t. If Iran backs out of the deal then presumably they should come back, but I doubt that will happen, since Russia and China don’t want them to.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 2:32 pmAfter listening the the interview with Elizabeth Chryst I’m swayed by her analysis. Without Corker-Menendez the Congress would have had no say at all. This administration would have simple done exactly the same thing and presented Congress with a fait accompli.
Really, not much would be different. But for that the rest of the Andy McCarthy’s analysis is good. This in particular:
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 2:33 pmNope. There is nothing to come back. UNSC resolutions never existed. Iran’s violations of them never happened. Think of this as someone being acquitted on appeal. The conviction never existed.
They’re down the memory hole. Iran’s violations of various treaties have been airbrushed from history.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 2:37 pmOh, and all records of the prior legal proceedings have been destroyed. Because that’s what’s happened here.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 2:40 pmWhat are you talking about? Where did the resolution say that?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 2:44 pmHere’s the text of the resolution. There’s nothing there erasing the history of sanctions against Iran, and in fact it continues the sanctions until such time as the IAEA certifies that Iran is in compliance, and provides for the sanctions to come back 30 days after one of the party nations says Iran is out of compliance.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 3:02 pmThat is the exact opposite of the truth. If Iran undoes the deal, the sanctions come back. And if the USA brings the sanctions back Iran can undo the deal. Well, isn’t that what we want?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 3:04 pmI’m not going to list all the UNSC resolutions that Iran was supposed to comply with, but never did. I will just list one.
http://www.cfr.org/iran/un-security-council-resolution-1929-iran/p22433
Iran never stopped any of these activities as required. They never stopped their enrichment activities, they never stopped work on ballistic missiles, and they never stopped acquiring missiles and/or missile systems, particularly from North Korea.
There was a host of UNSC resolutions Iran had to comply with before sanctions were lifted.
Until the last minute, when the Obama administration acceded to the demands of Iran, Russia, and China that the conventional weapons and ICBM sanctions be lifted as well, for absolutely nothing in return, Iran would have had to bring itself in compliance with those prior resolutions before sanctions related to those programs could be lifted.
Now, those UNSC resolutions never existed, and Iran’s continued violations of them never
happened. All those sanctions have been abolished and replaced by this JCPOA. The slate has been wiped clean. If Congress rejects the JCPOA, then we’re the ones queering the deal and Iran is free to buy or develop anything it likes in those categories of weapons immediately. Other countries are free to sell them any conventional weapons or ICBM related technology, parts, or presumably entire ICBMs immediately.
The US will now be the outlier, not Iran anymore. The other Russia, China, and presumably Germany will be eager to get in on the action. There is now nothing for Iran to violate if Congress doesn’t surrender to this blackmail.
How is this hard for you to understand?
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 3:09 pmHere’s the relevant text which has eluded you, Milhouse.
That’s what happened today.
The relevant portion of Annex V:
Those resolutions are gone now that the UNSC has endorsed this JCPOA. They’ll never come back thanks to Obama giving Russia and China veto power over US sovereignty and US national security interests. If Congress rejects the JCPOA, then we’ll be in non-compliance with the JCPOA. And the JCPOA will not have lasted long enough for Iran to have committed any violations of the JCPOA, thanks to the way Obama and Kerry conspired with Russia, China, and Iran against Congress, the Constitution, and the people of the United Stats. Iran will be free to exercise the only snapback provision anywhere in this abortion masquerading as a deal and declare it null and void. Russia and China will agree.
We’ll be the bad guys, not Iran. Just as President Mean Girl has believed us to be since our founding.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 3:23 pmThat’s right. And nobody claims otherwise.
What are you talking about? You’re completely making that up. Nothing in this resolution retroactively annuls the previous ones.
Again, what the $#%& are you talking about? Where does the resolution say anything like that?
As part of this deal, all previous sanctions will be terminated (they have not been yet), if Iran complies and remains in compliance. And any party can accuse Iran of noncompliance, and if they keep up that complaint for 30 days all previous sanctions come back. The resolution notes that Iran says if that happens it will stop complying, which of course it will already have done anyway. And the net result will (officially) be status quo ante. Of course I don’t believe Russia and China will comply, but I doubt how much longer they would have complied with the sanctions anyway (to whatever extent they’re not already violating them).
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 3:27 pmDid I submit my comment before you read it, or are you having trouble understanding what you’re reading?
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 3:29 pmHow does that back you up? “Will terminate” means they are now in place, and will come to an end. Not that they never existed!
No, it isn’t. It’s what will happen when the IAEA completes its inspections and certifies that Iran is complying.
Not gone; over, or at least they will be once the IAEA says what it’s been told to say (whether or not it’s true). They’re still part of history, contrary to your claim.
What the #$%^ are you talking about? They do not have veto power. The sanctions come back automatically 30 days after any party complains that Iran is out of compliance.
Again, read the d–ned thing. You are writing the exact opposite of the truth.
Of course I share your horror at this deal, and your cynicism about Russia’s and China’s intentions. But on paper this resolution is fine. If Congress doesn’t lift sanctions the deal is off, and the international sanctions come back.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 3:35 pmHuh?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 3:35 pm0bama countdown clock to embed on your site:
<iframe frameborder=”0″ width=”120″ height=”35″ style=”background-color:black”
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 3:37 pmsrc=”http://free.timeanddate.com/countdown/i4crxztx/n179/cf12/cm0/cu4/ct0/cs0/ca0/co0/cr0/ss0/cacfffdd0/cpcfffdd0/pct/tcfff/fs100/szw320/szh135/iso2017-01-20T12:00:00″
></iframe>
Latest from my congressman. Don’t know what he has in mind, but—-
elissa (8a891b) — 7/20/2015 @ 3:50 pmMilhouse, they’re gone:
With this vote in the UN, those UNSCRs have been terminated.
That’s very clear language. You can have your own interpretation and pretend there’s some wiggle room, but there isn’t any. And have you not been paying attention? Iran has won every single battle over interpretation of this mess every single time.
They’re gone. That is reality. And there is only one avenue to get them back; for Congress to acquiesce to this done deal.
Not that they would come back in any case. “Significant non-performance” is a subjective standard, and Iran sits on the Joint Commission and gets a vote on whether or not it has “significantly non-performed” per the JCPOA. All it needs is three other countries to side with it and it has a majority. And in case you haven’t been paying attention to this slice of reality, the US has not only been acting as Iran’s attorney when negotiating against Congress, the Obama administration has been acting as Iran’s attorney on the P5+1 committee against the IAEA and its accusations that Iran has been cheating.
IAEA satellite and sensor monitoring can only detect suspected Iranian violations. To confirm that Iran has committed a violation the IAEA has to convince the Joint Commission that it requires access. That’s not a slam dunk. And even then, if the IAEA eventually gets access it will be delayed for at least 24 days (unless Iran really does have nothing to hide, thus calling into question the IAEA’s credibility). In that time pace the Obama administration and its spin the Iranians will have time to clean up the site entirely or sufficiently to the point the IAEA will not be able to determine the nature of the violation or its significance.
Game, set, match, Milhouse. Get onboard with reality. Or you can wait until September to see that I’m right about how things are going to play out IF Congress somehow gets enough spine to reject this monstrosity.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 4:00 pmThinking more about it, even if Congress fails to stop 0bama now, when President Walker takes office all he needs to do is gather some kind of evidence that Iran is out of compliance, and start the 30-day clock to bring the sanctions back, which will lead Iran to cancel the deal altogether. It doesn’t matter if Russia, China, or indeed the entire Security Council except the USA are not convinced, or pretend not to be convinced; if the USA keeps up its complaint for 30 days the sanctions automatically come back. On paper. I doubt Russia or China will comply. And contracts made in the interim will be exempt, so I would expect a spate of such contracts to be signed between November 2016 and January 2017.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 4:04 pmWith four votes Iran may not have a majority; apparently along with the P5+1 nations and Iran the EU’s High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy also gets a vote. So at 4/4 it would be a stalemate. And I don’t see how the IAEA gets in if the the Joint Commission stalemates.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 4:04 pmFurther to my comment @43:
With Iran rustling up three votes in addition to its own, the Joint Commission never gets to five.
And I don’t see any provision to break the tie.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 4:08 pmNo, they’re not.
Will be. When the IAEA says Iran is in compliance. Not now.
But even then the past won’t be erased from history. Where did you come up with that bizarre idea?
What commission? 30 days from when a participant state notifies the Security Council of what it believes to be Iran’s significant non-performance, if the Security Council has not voted to continue in effect the termination, it ends, and all the sanctions come back. It doesn’t matter if nobody else agrees with the complaint. It doesn’t need a resolution to bring the sanctions back, it needs a resolution to stop them from coming back, and President Walker’s ambassador can veto such a resolution.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 4:14 pmUmm, no. It needs four other votes:
The sanctions come back if there is a new UNSC resolution. Cite a provision that says otherwise.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 4:15 pmMilhouse, you are simply living in an alternate universe.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 4:16 pmThe resolution explicitly says the exact opposite. Paragraph 11 and 12.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 4:23 pmOk, Milhouse, you go ahead and think what you like. We only have a month or so to wait and watch the dominoes fall if Congress rejects this JCPOA.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 4:27 pm11. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, that, within 30 days of receiving a notification by a JCPOA participant State of an issue that the JCPOA participant State believes constitutes significant non-performance of commitments under flÿe JCPOA, it shall vote on a draft resolution to continue in effect the terminations in paragraph 7 (a) of this resolution, decides further that if, within 10 days of the notification referred to above, no Member of the Security Council has submitted such a draft resolution for a vote, then the President of the Security Council shall submit such a draft resolution and put it to a vote within 30 days of the notification referred to above, and expresses its intention to take into account the views of the Stales involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue by the Advisory Board established in ihe JCPOA;
12. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations,
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 4:31 pmthat, if the Security Council does not adopt a resolution under paragraph 11 to
continue in effect the terminations in paragraph 7 (a), then effective midnight
Greenwich Mean Time after the thirtieth day after the notification to the Security
Council described in paragraph 11, all of the provisions of resolutions 1696 (2006),
1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), and 1929 (2010) that have
been terminated pursuant to paragraph 7 (a) shall apply in the same manner as they
applied before the adoption of this resolution, and the measures contained in
paragraphs 7, 8 and 16 to 20 of this resolution shall be terminated, unless the
Security Council decides otherwise;
Sorry, that was horribly formatted.
11. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, that, within 30 days of receiving a notification by a JCPOA participant State of an issue that the JCPOA participant State believes constitutes significant non-performance of commitments under flÿe JCPOA, it shall vote on a draft resolution to continue in effect the terminations in paragraph 7 (a) of this resolution, decides further that if, within 10 days of the notification referred to above, no Member of the Security Council has submitted such a draft resolution for a vote, then the President of the Security Council shall submit such a draft resolution and put it to a vote within 30 days of the notification referred to above, and expresses its intention to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue by the Advisory Board established in ihe JCPOA;
12. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, that, if the Security Council does not adopt a resolution under paragraph 11 to continue in effect the terminations in paragraph 7 (a), then effective midnight Greenwich Mean Time after the thirtieth day after the notification to the Security Council described in paragraph 11, all of the provisions of resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), and 1929 (2010) that have been terminated pursuant to paragraph 7 (a) shall apply in the same manner as they applied before the adoption of this resolution, and the measures contained in paragraphs 7, 8 and 16 to 20 of this resolution shall be terminated, unless the Security Council decides otherwise;
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 4:32 pmhttp://www.timesofisrael.com/us-mulling-unprecedented-arms-package-to-israel-after-iran-deal/
The Obama administration is now forced to admit this thing (it’s not a deal, as a deal implies an exchange of items of value, and Iran gets everything it wants and the US to some extent pays for it; the US gets less than nothing).
And I’m curious, does anybody believe this?
We. Do. Not.
Didn’t we prove this in the run-up to the 2002 invasion of Iraq? And I still support that, because it did not bother me one bit that Iraq did not have what we suspected it of having.
I was for it because Iraq was clearly in violation of the inspection regime, and 24/7 “anytime, anywhere” which pace Kerry who claims he never heard the term before (which means he didn’t know what his own negotiating team and the WH was saying, which is admitting he was out of the loop) is how the IAEA describes its snap inspection requirements.
Anywhere withing 24 hours.
That is the only way to confirm anything. Which is why I was entirely unconcerned about what we would or wouldn’t find. Without snap inspections there is no other way to knowf. That’s why they must be implemented and enforced. With the military if necessary.
I mean, my lord, the Iranians have managed to build entire facilities without our knowledge. Without defectors coming in (a lot of times the information does play out, but sometimes it does) we don’t even know where to image within Iran.
And now this administration claims we have the ability to detect cheating at those facilities, when we don’t have the ability to discover entire facilities until it’s too late?
Do they believe all of us are this stupid?
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 4:43 pmI have to go to dinner; I’ll take things up later.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 4:45 pmDo these people even talk to each other?
John Kerry to PBS’ Judy Woodruff: The Iranians aren’t “allowed” to spend the now-unfrozen $150 billion on terror operations..“they’re not allowed to do that. They’re not allowed to do that outside even with this agreement. There’s a UN resolution that specifically applies to them not being allowed to transfer to Hezbollah. They are specifically not allowed under another UN resolution to transfer to the Shi’a militia in Iraq.”
Susan Rice speaking to CNN: “We should expect” that some of the money Iran gets under sanctions relief as a result of the nuclear deal will be spent on the Iranian military … and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region” (terrorism) …
elissa (8a891b) — 7/20/2015 @ 5:02 pmForget “Swiftboating” Kerry needs a swift kick in the ass.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/20/2015 @ 5:04 pmU.N. approval… that and a buck sixty five will getcha a cup of coffee.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/20/2015 @ 5:07 pmHipster lumbersexuals might want to consider shaving their beards.
nk (dbc370) — 7/20/2015 @ 5:14 pmjohn francis kerry
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/20/2015 @ 5:15 pmasked don’tyouknowwhoIam?
and the mullahs laughed
No, they just don’t care.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 5:21 pmjohn francis kerry
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/20/2015 @ 5:24 pmand his sidekick ben franklin
the Left’s Mutt and Jeff
Ah, you’re still here, Milhouse. I meant the Kerry-Iran deal.
On the 2009 sanctions, other countries imposed them because of Iran’s atrocities against its people during the elections, while our SCOAMF said we should not interfere with the democratic process in Iran.
nk (dbc370) — 7/20/2015 @ 5:37 pmOUTLAW!
Screw the UNSC, and the entire UN. Cut off our inflated payments, and give these parasites 90 days to get out of New York and the US. Go to Geneva, why don’t they?
And screw Iran.
mojo (a3d457) — 7/20/2015 @ 7:36 pmMilhouse, I see the problem. Something must be very wrong with you. You tell me to read the d__ned thing? You read the d__ned thing! Your link @31 goes to a document clearly marked on the very first page as “Provisional” and “United States of America: Draft Resolution.”
Here’s the link again; or scroll up to Milhouse’s comment @31 and check. It’s the same link.
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/272076282?access_key=key-TbtNvxuTh0E74dgag4yb&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll
That is not the final version! That draft resolution is 104 pages long, and nobody bothered to upload all 104 pages. Only the first 50. You have had no clue what text I’m referring to as as it’s in the annexes of the final version (your provisional, draft version doesn’t even hint that there are five annexes that implement this agreement) well beyond the first 50 pages of the final, 159 page JCPOA.
The finalized version that was just endorsed today at the UNSC can be found in one of the embedded links at this article.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-will-teach-iran-to-thwart-nuke-threats/
The embedded link that automatically opens the pdf file containing the final version is the word “according” in this sentence.
The language you’ve been promoting as somehow controlling is not in the final version.
Why are you so sloppy Milhouse? Or is it something else besides sloppiness that had you promoting a provisional, draft version as if it were the actual agreement.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 9:42 pmThe paragraphs that Milhouse quotes from page 4/104 are nowhere to be found in the final version.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 9:43 pmThis is what paragraphs 11 and 12 in the Preamble and General Provisions say in the final version (9/159).
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 9:48 pmArticle 41 of the UN charter is not mentioned anywhere in the final version.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 9:50 pmWhy is everyone acting as if the UN matters?
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 7/20/2015 @ 9:56 pmBulldust. Why do you tell such obvious untruths? Look at the date on that article: July 14. A week ago. Then look at the top of the document linked. It’s not even a draft of a UNSC resolution. It’s the JCPOA, the agreement with Iran. The document I linked is, as far as I can tell, the draft resolution that was voted on and adopted. (All UNSC resolutions are referred to as “draft resolutions” until they’re adopted.) It contains the JCPOA as Annex A, starting on page 8.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:01 pmMilhouse, the version I linked to is what everyone who is analyzing the JCPOA has accepted as the final version.
It is what the Russians and the Iranians are insisting is the final version. And as I pointed out, the Iranian interpretation wins every time.
You know, if the one you’re convinced is the final version, and President Walker would have such an easy time opting out then nobody between Washington and Tel Aviv would think this is as bad a deal as it is.
But that is not the final version at your link.
The final version is the more horrible one at my link.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:13 pmhttp://www.irna.ir/en/News/81682704/
The one I linked to is the one the Iranians will be adhering to. And the Russians.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:14 pmhttp://theiranproject.com/blog/2015/07/14/text-of-jcpoa-gets-final-reviews/
Yes, do note the date and text on the document at my link.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:16 pmThe final version of what? It doesn’t even purport to be a Security Council resolution. What you linked to is the JCPOA. What I linked to is UNSC Resolution 2231 (2015). That is what is binding, and that is what has paragraphs 11 and 12 that let President Walker terminate it and bring back all the sanctions on 30 days notice.
1. There’s no guarantee who will be president in 2017.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:24 pm2. A lot of damage can happen between now and then.
3. If Walker does invoke this provision and bring the sanctions back, do you think Russia and China will obey them? They wil be binding international law, to the extent that there is any such thing, but neither Russia nor China give a fig for that. They do what they think they can get away with, and they will say Walker acted in bad faith. Even if he presents crushingly convincing evidence of Iran’s violations (and there’s no guarantee he will be able to obtain such evidence), they will claim it’s fake (and will rely on the false but widely accepted belief that the USA under GWB faked evidence against Iraq).
4. Even if they are diplomatically compelled to go along, contracts signed before the 30 days are up will be exempt from the sanctions.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/kerry-announces-deal-irans-nuclear-055240332.html
Yeah, Milhouse, you know that deal Kerry was talking about following the meeting in Vienna on July 14th of this year?
It’s the one marked “Vienna, 14 July 2015.”
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:24 pmAnd that is not the UN Security Council resolution adopted on July 20.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:30 pmThe final agreement between the P5+1 and Iran. It is the controlling document. They UNSC has no power to change the JCPOA, they can simply endorse it or not.
The P5+1 powers, and the EU High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will morph into the Joint commission and enforce the JCPOA.
You would know this if you understood the process. But to understand the process you have to have the agreement. Not half of some provisional draft document that is not the agreement.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:40 pmThe JCPOA is attached as Annex A to the Security Council resolution, which is what I linked to. Look at page 8.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:40 pmSo? The UNSC resolution isn’t the nuclear agreement.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:41 pmYou’ve got it backwards. The powers that signed the JCPOA have no authority to lift UN sanctions. JCPOA doesn’t and can’t lift the sanctions. Only the UNSC can do that, and it did so by means of Resolution 2231 (2015), which is what I linked. That resolution and only that resolution is what terminates the sanctions, and in paragraphs 11 and 12 it provides that the termination will automatically end 30 days after any party informs the Security Council that it beleives Iran is in significant non-performance, unless the Security Council votes otherwise. You really can’t dispute that, Steve.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:45 pmThe UNSC resolution is all that matters as far as international law goes, including as far as the binding sanctions go.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:46 pmGot it? The UNSC has the power to endorse this JCPOA. Not some other text that isn’t in this agreement.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:47 pmMilhouse, you have no clue as to what is happening right in front of your eyes.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:49 pmSteve, you are blathering. First of all, the UNSC has the power to do whatever it damn well likes. Its Chapter 7 resolutions are binding on all UN members. It is not controlled by the JCPOA, the JCPOA is controlled by it. More importantly, it is the only body that can lift the sanctions, which is what we’re discussing. It doesn’t matter what the JCPOA says about the sanctions, if it isn’t what the UNSC said. JCPOA by itself is nothing. And what I linked is, to the best of my knowledge, the final text that became Resolution 2231. That resolution did endorse the JCPOA, subject to certain terms, including paragraphs 11 and 12.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:52 pmIt’s nearly 3am, Steve, at least where I am. I have no idea where you are. Let’s call it a night. I have a meeting tomorrow.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:53 pmParagraphs 10 through 15, which you find so authoritative, come under this heading.
Application of Provisions of Previous Resolutions
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:54 pmOh, and if you have a web page please embed the 0bama countdown clock I provided earlier. We need some good news, and the best news is that in 549 days, 10 hours, 4 minutes, and 40 seconds, we will have a new president.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:55 pmGood night Milhouse. After some sleep you’ll see how wrong you are.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:56 pmSteve, you’re obviously blind to your own stupid misreading of the document. Run it past anyone who is competent in reading such things and they will tell you you are completely wrong.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/20/2015 @ 11:59 pmNo, those aren’t how sanctions will be enforced anymore. The UNSC endorsed the JCPOA.
There is a new enforcement regime now.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/21/2015 @ 12:08 amWhy? It is precisely because I’m following the lead of people who are competent in reading these documents that I know you are wrong.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/21/2015 @ 12:09 amThe experts say Milhouse is wrong. Those in the west who are dismayed by this betrayal, and those in China, Russia, and Iran who are elated by it.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/zarif-a-few-days-after-deal-un-will-drop-all-sanctions-whether-sen-cotton-likes-it-or-not/
This is the day Zarif was talking bout. Today’s UNSC vote was a mere formality. The UNSC rubber stamped this
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/?hpid=z2
What UNSC members used to be able to do under previous UNSC resolutions can no longer be done. It is not an option. The JCPOA undoes and replaces all that.
That’s why the Iranians are laughing all the way to the bank.
Anybody who thinks differently is not dealing with reality. And will get a rude awakening.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/21/2015 @ 1:01 amNo. I’m not. I did misunderstand what you were driving at. But only because you are completely wrong about how things are going to work from here on out because you haven’t digested the JCPOA. I was under the impression that you must be talking about some process that had some basis in reality, maybe under the previous resolutions. That isn’t the case. You are talking about a process that never had, does not have, and will never have a basis in reality.
You don’t know about the role of the Joint Commission. You don’t even know all the hoops a participant state will have to jump through per the JCPOA before it can bring it before the UNSC.
It matters if nobody else agrees. President Walker’s ambassador will be outvoted in the commission if President Walker tries to make a mountain out of a molehill. And that will end the matter.
This is how it is going to work.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/historic-agreement-reached-iran-iranian-nuclear-commitments-exchange-sanctions-relie
Now that the UNSC has endorsed the JCPOA, there is no mechanism by which a participant state can bypass the Joint Commission and go straight to the UNSC. It will not take it up. Can not take it up.
First the participant state has to convince the other members of the Joint Commission that Iran has committed a serious violation. If it can not, the issue will be resolved in Iran’s favor. Case closed.
There is no mechanism by which a participant state can continue to insist an issue that has been resolved per the JCPOA still constitutes significant non-performance and take it to the UNSC. The UNSC will not take it up. Can not take it up.
With this UNSC vote endorsing the JCPOA, that is the enforcement and dispute resolution regime. There is no other. What you have been talking about is pure imagination.
Hence my confusion.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/21/2015 @ 2:55 amBy the way, here is an excellent article on our glorious leader’s wonderful negotiating technique with the Iranians.
Milhouse (7d5ad7) — 7/21/2015 @ 11:04 amSteve, it doesn’t matter what the JCPOA says. The JCPOA is not international law, and does not terminate the sanctions. Its only status is that Resolution 2231 endorses it; so it’s 2231’s language that controls. And 2231 clearly provides for any party to bring the santions back on 30 days’ notice.
Suppose the president concludes an agreement with Canada, e.g. to make some arrangement on the border, and asks Congress to pass a law to implement it. And suppose the bill that passes Congress and the president signs differs from what was in the agreement. Which language controls? Obviously it’s what’s in the law, not what’s in the agreement. The agreement’s entire force comes from the law that implements it. This is the same thing. The previous UNSC resolutions, i.e. the sanctions, are in force except as 2231 provides. And what 2231 says is that they will be terminated when the IAEA certifies that Iran is complying with the JCPOA, but this termination will end 30 days after any party says so, unless the SC says otherwise.
Milhouse (7d5ad7) — 7/21/2015 @ 11:13 amjust this one aspect, renders it null and void,
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2015/07/21/ex-iaea-leader-24-day-inspection-delay-under-nuke-deal-will-boost-irans-cheating/
narciso (ee1f88) — 7/21/2015 @ 11:15 amMilhouse, give it up. The JCPOA is now intenational law. That is the only purpose of this resolution.
You told me @88 to run this document past people competent at reading such things to knock my “stupid” understanding of the resolution out of my head.
Too late. I got my “stupid” understanding of how things will work after the UN endorses the JCPOA from people competent in such matters.
I suggest you do the same. You can not read the resolution independently of the JCPOA, because by endorsing the JCPOA the UNSC has adopted it as international law.
If that weren’t the case, if it was going to be as easy to undermine as envisioned in your scenario @45, critics of this deal in the West and in Israel would not be so upset and the Mullahs and their allies wouldn’t be so triumphal.
They understand what’s going on. I understand what’s going on. You do not understand what’s going.
You do not understand that you scenario @45 exists only in your imagination. Actually, it took me a while to catch on to that as well, which is why I was hung up on previous resolutions. Then it dawned on me. You apparently think paragraphs 10 through 15 describe some stand-alone dispute resolution mechanism.
They do not.
You do not understand what you are looking at, and you can not understand what you are looking at, until you read what this resolution has adopted as international law. The JCPOA.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/21/2015 @ 11:41 amThe Russians and Chinese understand what this resolution does. It does the opposite of what you imagine it does. That is why they voted for it. The only thing that matters is what the JCPOA says. The JCPOA contains the controlling language. This resolution endorses, adopts, and implements the JCPOA.
You kept going on about how the UNSC can do what it wants. Well, it can if no one exercises a veto. They have to all agree. And what they all agreed to do was make the JCPOA international law.
http://globalcompliancenews.com/outline-of-eu-and-u-s-sanctions-relief-for-iran-20150716/
Everybody else understands this. The thirty day process of dispute resolution at the UNSC only occurs if the Joint Commission fails to resolve the issue in 35 days. Hence the universally understood 65 day snapback mechanism.
Well, nearly universally understood.
The language in the resolution does not conflict with the JCPOA. It endorses, adopts, and implements the terms of the JCPOA.
Again, that’s why Iran’s allies on the UNSC (which now includes the Obama administration) voted for it.
It’s not some stand alone mechanism. No one can simply start a 30 day clock at the UNSC unless they 35 day clock before the Joint Commission has run out with no resolution.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/21/2015 @ 12:29 pmnarcisso, further to your link @95:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/speaking-of-the-iran-deal-4.php
(Then onto the scientific reasons why the argument fails, as laid out at your link.)
This is why I supported the Iraq war. Only a snap inspection regime can verify cheating can come up with sufficiently convincing evidence of WMD development to warrant a diplomatic or if needs be military response to a nation’s cheating. You simply will not know if a country is arming itself with WMDs unless you have an international version of a “stop and frisk” policy.
Of course, the flip side of the above facts is that Bush never should have declared with such certainty that the Iraqis were developing WMDs.
But if that constitutes “lying” us into a war (which I don’t think it does, as the CIA was way overconfident about the accuracy of its intelligence, calling it a “slam dunk”) then this administration is using the exact same lie. They are declaring the same thing Bush does.
Our technical means, and the IAEA’s technical means, provide us with the same absolute certainty about Iran’s nuclear program.
Now Bush may not have known better, but I’m not here to defend Bush. So for arguments sake he lied about the intelligence. Shouldn’t we have learned not to believe the same lie by 2015? Shouldn’t we have learned a lesson from our experience?
Now, of course, Obama and Kerry are repeating the same lie, but to cover for arming Iran with nuclear weapons.
This is why disputes will never get out of the Joint Commission to go to the UNSC. No one will believe our evidence, thanks to people like Obama and Kerry claiming Bush lied us into war. Even the Europeans will now accuse us of lying to blow up the JCPOA. They will not vote with a future administration and give up what they believe will be lucrative trade unless someone provides them with overwhelming evidence of Iran’s significant non-performance. This JCPOA ensures that won’t happen unless the Iranians start assembling weapons on live TV.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/21/2015 @ 1:08 pmDoes anyone else but me appreciate the sweet irony of people calling Moniz Obama’s “unlikely” deal MVP?
How thin is this administration’s playbook?
Obama: “I need to sell something to Congress. Deploy the MIT professor!”
If I were a Senator on one of these committees I’d start out by saying that I’m skeptical of this deal because Iran has a track record. And, oh by the way, so do MIT professors.
Then I’d ask him if he knew Jonathan Gruber.
Things would to downhill from there.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/21/2015 @ 5:01 pmObama’s treason knows no bounds:
https://pompeo.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398509
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/21/2015 @ 5:32 pmSteve, the official text of Resolution 2231 is now on the UN web site, so you can no longer claim it’s just a draft.
No, it is not. Resolution 2231 and only Resolution 2231 is law, and it contains paragraphs 11 & 12.
No, it has not. The explicit text of the resolution overrides anything in the annex.
I’ve already explained why everyone is so worried. First, a lot of damage will be done between now and then. Second, there’s no guarantee who the next president will be. Third, if and when it happens, Russia and China will probably refuse to comply.
And guess what, nobody did.
They agreed to Resolution 2231, which includes those paragraphs. You can’t get out of that no matter how hard you try, Steve.
That’s not what it says. It says “within 30 days of receiving a notification by a JCPOA participant State of an issue that the JCPOA participant State believes constitutes significant non-performance of commitments under the JCPOA”, all the previous resolutions, i.e. the sanctions, automatically come back into effect unless the Security Council votes that they shouldn’t. And that’s a vote the USA can veto.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/21/2015 @ 9:52 pmMilhouse, I’d be ecstatic if I’m wrong and you’re right.
But I am afraid I am right. I don’t want to be.
I am not trying to prove how smart I am. I hope I turn out to be an idiot.
But I fear I won’t be.
We shall see, won’t we?
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/21/2015 @ 10:14 pmNo matter who’s right it’s going to be terrible. By the time President Walker gets in the damage may be irreversible. As I said, even if the sanctions come back on paper, who’s going to obey them?
When Israel signed the Oslo accords, its chief proponents, the traitor Yossi Beilin and his mentor Shimon Peres, declared that it was OK, if the PLO broke its word it could all be reversed. Teh territory given away could be taken back, the arms given to the PLO could be taken back, and everything would be as if the accords had not taken place. Of course they were lying. It was impossible to reverse the damage done, and thousands died as a result.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/21/2015 @ 10:35 pmThis administration’s treason and perfidy know no bounds.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421461/congressmen-discover-secret-deals-iran-agreement
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/22/2015 @ 9:51 amthat is the real point, now Samantha Power might have the ignorance and perfidy of Beilin,
narciso (ee1f88) — 7/22/2015 @ 9:54 amSteve and Milhouse, the reality is that once Iran nukes Tel Aviv, all these concerns about international “Law” will be mote. Reality will hold sway, and the only question will be whether we can limit the damage. I rather doubt it. With the clowns that squat behind the desks in the administration, there is always the chance the we will surrender. This will incentivize Iran to act sooner rather than later, especially as the Democratic 2016 candidates self destruct stumbling over their past history.
So in that sense, the coming halocaust will again be the Republican’s fault.
bobathome (d0d4f6) — 7/22/2015 @ 10:09 amThat is exactly my point. That is why the fact that President Walker can bring the UN sanctions back on 20-Feb-2017 is not much of a consolation.
But I don’t think Iran will nuke Tel Aviv. The purpose of nuclear weapons is not to use them; on the contrary, once you actually use them you’ve lost. Their purpose is to have them on hand, ready to be used, and to let your enemies know or (even better) suspect it. That way they are the ones who have to trim their expectations and modify their behavior to prevent you from using them. A nuclear-armed Iran will immediately be warned by all the world that it will suffer dire consequences should it use its weapons; but it will be given a free hand to do whatever it likes with its conventional forces, and so will its proxies throughout the region. Israel will be beaten into surrender, and the world will stand by and wring its hands and proclaim that it would have come and helped if only Iran didn’t have the Bomb.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/22/2015 @ 11:14 amBy the way, I got an answer to my question of what Corker/Menendez achieved. The answer is that 0bama is legally prevented from waiving the sanctions for 60 days from when he transmitted the agreement to Congress, or 10 days from when he vetoes the bill Congress will pass stripping him of this power.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/22/2015 @ 11:16 am“…President Walker can bring the UN sanctions back on 20-Feb-2017…”
No, he can’t. Paragraphs 36 and 37 of Annex A of UNSC resolution 2231 spells out the exact “DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM” the USNC will follow. From paragraph 37:
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/272076282?access_key=key-TbtNvxuTh0E74dgag4yb&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll
“… Upon receipt of the notification from {he complaining participant, as described
above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to
exhaust ttÿe dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN
Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution
to continue the sanctions lifting…”
This is the source you claim is authoritative, Milhouse. I don’t understand why, as the resolution simply elevates the JCPOA to the status of international law, as explicitly stated in just about every paragraph.
In any case you really ought to read it. Because clearly you haven’t. Even if President Walker accuses Iran of significant non-performance on the day he’s inaugurated, on 20 February 2017 that dispute will still be before the Joint Commission.
Even under the rosiest scenario the UNSC will not be begin to consider it until 24 February (your count is off) and won’t be able to get the sanction to “snapback” until 26 March.
I can’t find anybody except you, Milhouse, claiming that any US administration so inclined to bring back sanctions can do so under 65 days at the earliest. Absolutely no one with foreign policy experience and who has read these documents. Just you.
It just ain’t gonna happen Milhouse.
Now a US administration could decide that a matter rises to the level of significant non-performance Joint Commission has failed to resolve it, and then stop complying with the JCPOA unilaterally on 02 March. And that would be effective, because that would give corporations a stark choice. Do business with Iran and you can’t do business with the US.
But the way the JCPOA and the resolution are written the UN route is a dead end.
That paragraph simple implements the JCPOA. You can see that if you bothered to read the language of the JCPOA, which is part of this resolution. Again from paragraph 37 of Annex A:
So, the US could veto the resolution continuing the lifting of sanctions. And then the sanctions would be reimposed right?
Not so fast. What does the phrase, “unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise” mean? Nobody can explain that, or if they know they’re not telling.
We already know about one secret side deal this administration has made (see #104). How many other secret side agreements “or other understandings and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future” has this administration made? There’s way to know.
But that phrase “unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise” is not explained in the text of the resolution or the JCPOA. I can guarantee this administration has an understanding of it, and has made some other secret agreement with the other P5+1 powers and Iran.
Just like Hagel inadvertently revealed during his confirmation hearings this administration’s true policy toward Iran, containment and conferring legitimacy on the Mullah’s theocracy, while it was lying to the US public about its policies of prevention, etc., Kerry also made a revealing statement.
This is like the PPACA. If Congress fails to block adoption of the JCPOA only then will we find out what’s in it. Or rather, what’s secretly attached to it.
You’ll see. We won’t be able to tie those other countries hands, or Iran’s, at the UN. That would be presumptuous. The go-it-alone route will be the only path open to the next administration.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/22/2015 @ 1:10 pmWith this nuclear deal the Obama administration has told Iran and the world terrorism works.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940430000738
Expect the unregistered agents of a foreign power at Iran’s domestic law firm of Obama, Biden, Jarret, & Kerry to lie about moderating Iran’s behavior as Iran continues to very publicly modify the USG’s behavior.
Oh, by the way, further to my last; we know of at least two secret side deals this administration has made around the JCPOA.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/22/2015 @ 2:38 pmSteve, the phrase “unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise” is crystal clear. The UNSC decides things by voting, and the USA has a veto on every vote. The UNSC cannot decide otherwise if the USA doesn’t want it to. End of story. JCPOA is not international law; 2231 is. 2231 endorses JCPOA in general, but its specific language overrides whatever is in JCPOA.
And Paragraph 11 of the resolution itself says nothing about having to go to a dispute resolution process first. The 30-day clock begins ticking the moment the USA informs the UNSC that it believes Iran is significantly not performing. If President Walker transmits that information on 20-Jan-2017, the clock begins ticking immediately, 19-Feb is the 30th day after notification (interpreting “after” generously), and the sanctions snap back that evening at 7:00pm EST.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/22/2015 @ 2:58 pmSecret deals are not law either. 2231 is, and so are the previous resolutions (i.e. sanctions) to which it refers. If the termination is ended, all those sanctions come back and are binding on all UN members. I just don’t think those members will give a ****.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/22/2015 @ 3:00 pmOk, Milhouse, you keep interpreting the resolution in a way that no one else on Earth is interpreting it.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/22/2015 @ 3:28 pmI’m reading its text, which is clear. There is no other way to read it. Please explain how you see any ambiguity in “unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise”. How can you not think the USA has a veto on any such decision?
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/22/2015 @ 3:34 pmMilhouse, the fact the phrase is there at all is the problem. Why? The matter would be crystal clear if it weren’t there.
It’s not standard boilerplate. I believe I’ve read every resolution the UNSC passed regarding Iraq between Desert Storm I and Desert Storm II and I haven’t seen this language directed toward the UNSC itself. Its mere existence is raising questions among those very people experience at reading these sorts of documents you suggest I run my misunderstanding of this document by.
Which is why I pointed it out and observed nobody can explain why it’s there and what it could possibly mean.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/22/2015 @ 5:27 pmWhile Obama is running his mouth about saving the world from nuclear Iran and therefore M.E. nuclear arms race, reality is shouting him down.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198436#.VbA8GppOnVJ
This would be hilarious if the situation weren’t so dire. Congress hasn’t voted on it yet, the the JCPoA hasn’t even gone into full effect, and already it’s blowing up in Obama’s face. Obama has shot himself in both feet and is running out of volunteers to take bullets in their feet.
Kerry offered to put S.A. under our nuclear umbrella and the Saudis told him to shove it. US assurances are no good anymore. Perhaps maybe Obama shouldn’t have put out the word that Bibi was a sucker and “chickens**t” for relying on them.
And by the very act of offering S.A. new security guarantees, similar to Rice’s phone call to Netanyahu offering him “unprecedented” military assistance as compensation for the Iran deal, this administration demonstrates you’d have to be a fool to take their word for anything.
Such as their word that this deal makes the region safer. Nobody needs extra security if the threat has decreased.
S.A. figures it will face sanctions but also figures the world needs its oil too much to abide by those sanctions. And it’s better to face sanctions than to rely on the US.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/22/2015 @ 6:20 pmThe devil is always in the details.
http://www.hudson.org/research/11455-iran-inspections-in-24-days-not-even-close
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/22/2015 @ 9:09 pmThis focus on the legal details of Obola’s Iran capitulation are really amusing. It reminds me of January, 1940 when the League of Nations, in the wake of the invasion of Poland, stormed into the Baltic and simultaneously landed mechanized armies on two beachheads in a startling display of amphibious warfare power. This, as we all recall, resulted in the rapid overthrow of both Hilter and Stalin. But of course, that was all overthrown in the World Court in February of 1940 when Hitler’s New York lawyers disclosed a clause in the appendix of a document that Chamberlain had tried to hide. The films of the 6 million troops swimming back out to their transports after they apologized and sang camp fire songs with the SS troopers they’d captured are still moving and reinforce my belief in the significance of international law.
bobathome (d0d4f6) — 7/22/2015 @ 9:45 pm