State Department: Iran Never Signed Nuclear Deal, Which Isn’t ‘Legally Binding’
Nov. 30, 2015
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.
And there are many, many reasons to expect Iran to continue to cheat.
It’s what they do. The trick for Iran was to convince America and
Europe to pump tens of billions back into its struggling economy, in
exchange for handing Western leaders a “historic document” to wave
around as a triumph of war-avoiding diplomacy, or whatever. The
terrorist-financing regime knows full well that it can obfuscate and
cheat at the margins for 10 to 15 years, supplying their enablers with
various excuses to kick the can on re-imposing sanctions, then break out
as an internationally-blessed nuclearized state just as soon as the
deal’s restrictions automatically expire.
The agreement leaves Iran’s illegal nuclear program almost completely intact,
only “paused” (we know how that’s gone so far). It also does not
guarantee intrusive “snap” inspections at all suspected nuclear sites,
erecting a lengthy appeal period in which Iran can at least partially
cover its tracks as the international bureaucratic process churns along.
Furthermore, Iranian officials have flatly stated that certain military
sites are not subject to any inspections, period.
Iran is furnished with the billions it craves and a legitimized nuclear program, Europe gets a lucrative new trading partner, and Obama gets a “
legacy-enhancer”
among the left-wing academic and cultural elite, even as it’s opposed
by a sizable majority of the country he leads. This president’s alleged
triumph is appropriately embodied by an aspirational, unsigned document
that contains many words that sound wonderful in theory, but appear
dangerously naive in practice. It ultimately weakens America and
strengthens a sworn enemy. Alas, the seemingly-significant admission
showcased in the headline of this post is dismissed as a silly
technicality by the Obama White House — which apparently sealed a
controversial deal with Iran with the diplomatic equivalent of a
handshake. Smart power. Meanwhile, Iran’s emboldened leaders would like
to remind the world that they remain fully committed loathers of the
United States:
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.
The regime released another anti-American propaganda video in
September, featuring images of flag-draped coffins and a warning that
Tehran would “humiliate” the US military in a potential conflict. In
addition to these PR provocations, Iran has test-fired an illegal
long-range missile, “convicted” a Washington Post journalist, detained
yet another American citizen, and intensified its cyber warfare against
the US government. Obama defenders and Iran apologists will downplay
these moves as gestures designed to reassure domestic hardliners that
the regime hasn’t gone soft against the West. It’s all just internal
political posturing, they intone knowingly, and it’s still preferable to
an unchecked nuclear advance. If only the nuclear accord came close to
achieving the goals laid out by supporters at the outset of
negotiations. It does not. And at the risk of betraying a lack of
sophistication, perhaps the regime’s “death to America” words and
actions are exactly what they appear to be:
Manifestations
of abiding enmity harbored by a cabal of religious fanatics who’ve
viewed America as the Great Satan ever since they violently seized
control of their country several decades ago.
