State Department says Iran NEVER SIGNED nuclear deal and it’s not ‘legally binding’ as it tells Congress to butt out of Obama’s ‘political commitments’

Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise

This is an oldy but relevant:

  • Obama administration makes acknowledgments in letter to Kansas congressman
  • Administration did not make a signature on the nuclear agreement necessary
  • Controversial deal was not passed by Congress, but approval wasn’t necessary
  • Deal is expected to start taking effect in January 
  • See more of the latest news updates on the Iran nuclear deal 

The Obama administration has disclosed to Congress that this summer’s controversial nuclear arms agreement with Iran was never signed and is not legally binding, according to a new report this week.

The State Department made the disclosures in a letter to Kansas congressman Mike Pompeo, a Republican, who had written the department to inquire why the agreement as submitted to Congress in July did not bear the signature of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

‘The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,’ Julia Frifield, an assistant secretary for legislative affairs wrote Pompeo last Thursday.

Click Here for Original Article With Videos

Secretary of State John Kerry took a leading role in negotiating this summer's controversial nuclear arms deal with Iran

Secretary of State John Kerry took a leading role in negotiating this summer’s controversial nuclear arms deal with Iran

Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at a meeting in Tehran in early July, as the finishing touches were being put on a complex nuclear arms agreement between Iran and six other countries including the US

Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at a meeting in Tehran in early July, as the finishing touches were being put on a complex nuclear arms agreement between Iran and six other countries including the US

As detailed in a story in National Review, Frifield went on to describe the agreement as a group of ‘political commitments’ instead of a legally binding document, telling Pompeo that the success of the agreement will depend on other factors.

‘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,’ she wrote.

Congress took a series of votes in September on the deal but never formally approved it – a step that was ultimately considered unnecessary by the White House since President Obama could have vetoed any attempt to strike it down.

In Iran, Rouhani persuaded the Iranian parliament not to vote on the deal to avoid creating ‘an obligation for the government.’

‘It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,’ Rouhani said, according to news reports in August. ‘Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?’

Pompeo had referenced Rouhani’s remark in his initial letter, which was addressed to Secretary of State John Kerry, who negotiated the agreement.

‘This is not a mere formality,’ Pompeo wrote Kerry on Sept. 19. ‘Signatures represent the commitment of the signatory and the country on whose behalf he or she is signing. A signature also serves to make clear precisely who the parties to the agreement are and the authority under which that nation entered into the agreement.’

‘In short, just as with any legal instrument, signing matters.’

An assistant secretary at the State Department disclosed that the agreement was never signed and is not legally binding in this letter last week to Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Republican

An assistant secretary at the State Department disclosed that the agreement was never signed and is not legally binding in this letter last week to Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Republican

 The controversial agreement is expected to start taking effect in January. Under its terms, Iran has agreed to reduce by two-thirds its number of centrifuges which purify or ‘enrich’ uranium.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
May 10, 2018 7:20 am

Well slap me in the ass and call me Sally! How’s THAT for a plot twist? Mike Pompeo for Best Actor?

Did the Onigger administration do ANYTHING fucking right? It’s very clear that the deep state never expected Hitlary to lose.

If people can’t see that Trump is cleaning house by now there’s just no hope for them. Everything in DC and fed.gov is so fucked up it’s practically impossible to accomplish anything that might be legal or binding. It’s a giant clusterfuck that only makes sense to, or works for criminal scumbags. This is what’s Trump is up against. The entire system is rigged and phony. The criminal scumbags built their little fiefdom with a million “outs” so in order to do anything proper the system has to be unfucked before the traitors are exposed and arrestd. This is why so many politicians and Wall St scum are quietly resigning their very lucrative positions. Trump, Sessions, Mueller & Pompeo have all the dirt on everyone but they can’t drop the hammer until a sufficient number of rats and loopholes are terminated.

Monkeys here have been complaining even if Felonia and friends are arrested charges won’t stick. You’re right. That’s why you’re seeing a slow, tedious cleanup that is being hindered and blocked at every turn. A war for survival of the deep state is being fought right under our noses. The deep state is proper fucked folks. Enjoy the show!

Edwitness
Edwitness
  IndenturedServant
May 10, 2018 10:29 am

If you haven’t already seen this check it out.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=FhTMy9ma2mQ
What is going on? Only the puppet masters know for sure. And God uses their lust for money and power to His ends.
Blessings:-}

Zarathustra
Zarathustra
May 10, 2018 9:25 am

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Just a Good Idea – It’s the Law

by Thomas Knapp Posted on May 10, 2018

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”

While that decision has come under criticism for being both a really bad idea and a severe betrayal of trust, both of which are true, it’s worth noting that the US withdrawal is also a breach of treaty obligations, and that such obligations are, per the US Constitution and co-equal with it, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

But wait – aren’t defenders of the withdrawal correct in noting that the JCPOA isn’t a treaty at all? Yes, they are, although some err in referring to it as an “executive order.” It isn’t even that. It’s merely a “State Department Political Commitment” which can be wadded up and thrown in the trash any time …

… except that the treaty in question is not the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It’s the United Nations Charter, delivered to the US Senate by President Harry Truman and duly ratified by that body on July 28, 1945 by a vote of 89-2.

Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

On July 20, 2015, the members of that body, including the United States, unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

It seems unlikely that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN at the time, didn’t know what she was committing the US government to when she voted for the resolution rather than exercising the US’s veto power on the Security Council. After all, the resolution itself contains text “[u]nderscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions.”

Was the JCPOA a “good deal?” Not especially so for the Iranians. Even though they apparently had no nuclear weapons program after 2004 at the latest, and even though they were apparently in full compliance with their obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike the US), they made a bunch of concessions to US demagoguery (and demagoguery from Israel, an ACTUAL rogue nuclear state) in order to get some of their own money (seized by the US government) back and get some sanctions (which should never have existed) lifted.

For the US government, it was an excellent deal, a face-saving way of hitting the reset button on nearly 40 years of failed policy vis-à-vis Iran. By letting Iran rejoin “the civilized world,” the US received the same opportunity – an opportunity that Trump just blew by way of loudly warning the world that the US government can’t be trusted to keep its word. Or honor its treaty obligations.

Dave
Dave
  Zarathustra
May 10, 2018 11:12 am

Take a knapp Thomas.

MadMike
MadMike
  Zarathustra
May 10, 2018 2:19 pm

knapp- a verb, to shape a piece of stone, typically flint, by striking it.

In this case the stone is dense, and cracked.
Evict the UN and sell the building to get some of our money back.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
  Zarathustra
May 10, 2018 2:48 pm

Raman Ghavami
@Raman_Ghavami

Follow @Raman_Ghavami

H.J.Ansari Zarif’s senior advisor: “If Europeans stop trading with Iran and don’t put pressure on US then we will reveal which western politicians and how much money they had received during nuclear negotiations to make #IranDeal happen.”

That would be interesting.

#JCPOA

2:16 PM – 8 May 2018

Edwitness
Edwitness
May 10, 2018 10:24 am

Excellent story FM.
Blessings:-}

RS
RS
May 10, 2018 1:25 pm

Where is our $150 BILLION in CASH that was given to Iran?

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
  RS
May 10, 2018 2:26 pm

It was over 2 Billion if you count the ransom paid for the hostages too……..in fucking cash. I’d have mailed ’em a check.

Zarathustra
Zarathustra
  RS
May 10, 2018 2:29 pm

It wasn’t “given” to them nor was it ever “ours.” It was their money which had in fact been stolen by us.

Now Israel on the other hand…Yes that IS our money and I want it back!