Tweet
Obama never required Iran to sign nuke deal, it’s not legally binding, and yes, we’re honoring it
Canada Free Press
Robert Laurie
11/30/2015
Excerpt:
In Obamaland, words have no meaning. We know this. Illegal Immigrants aren’t here illegally, the Islamic State isn’t Islamic, and affordable healthcare isn’t affordable. Now we’re learning that deals aren’t really deals. Actual “deals” are two-sided affairs and, according to the National Review, the President’s horrible nuclear deal with Iran doesn’t really qualify.
That’s because Iranian leaders were never required to sign the “deal,” which is not legally binding in any way. According to the State Department, it’s simply a collection of “political promises.”
From the National Review.
Wait, why is the word “might” in there?
Iranian leadership has already vowed to violate the terms, as the Washington Free Beacon reported:
Never mind what they say they’re going to do, though, we’re still assuming the “deal” - or whatever it is - will work as planned.
Of course, if the whole thing is non-binding, we already have that capacity and we’ve broadcast that we’re choosing not to do it.
Essentially, John Kerry and Barack Obama’s masterful negotiations were nothing more than political theater that placed the terrorist state of Iran on the path to a nuclear weapon and removed over $100 Million in sanctions. In return, we got assurances that Iran will violate a non-binding deal that they never actually signed.
..............................................
View the complete article at:
http://canadafreepress.com/article/77142
Canada Free Press
Robert Laurie
11/30/2015
Excerpt:
In Obamaland, words have no meaning. We know this. Illegal Immigrants aren’t here illegally, the Islamic State isn’t Islamic, and affordable healthcare isn’t affordable. Now we’re learning that deals aren’t really deals. Actual “deals” are two-sided affairs and, according to the National Review, the President’s horrible nuclear deal with Iran doesn’t really qualify.
That’s because Iranian leaders were never required to sign the “deal,” which is not legally binding in any way. According to the State Department, it’s simply a collection of “political promises.”
From the 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.
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.
Wait, why is the word “might” in there?
Iranian leadership has already vowed to violate the terms, as the Washington Free Beacon reported:
Multiple senior Iranian officials have vowed in recent weeks to violate the recently inked nuclear accord that aims to constrain the Islamic Republic’s contested nuclear enrichment program, according to multiple comments by top Iranian leaders.
Iranian leaders, including President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, have said that the country has “no intention” of abiding by a United Nations Security Council Resolution that encompasses the deal and other restrictions on Tehran’s rogue activities, according to these comments.
Iranian leaders, including President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, have said that the country has “no intention” of abiding by a United Nations Security Council Resolution that encompasses the deal and other restrictions on Tehran’s rogue activities, according to these comments.
Never mind what they say they’re going to do, though, we’re still assuming the “deal” - or whatever it is - will work as planned.
“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.
Of course, if the whole thing is non-binding, we already have that capacity and we’ve broadcast that we’re choosing not to do it.
Essentially, John Kerry and Barack Obama’s masterful negotiations were nothing more than political theater that placed the terrorist state of Iran on the path to a nuclear weapon and removed over $100 Million in sanctions. In return, we got assurances that Iran will violate a non-binding deal that they never actually signed.
..............................................
View the complete article at:
http://canadafreepress.com/article/77142