Addressing media questions on Monday, President Trump announced that he is will to meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani if the Iranians are willing. He said they could meet at any time, with no preconditions.
The comments come after a week of conflicting US statements on Iran, many from Trump himself. This time last week, Trump was threatening Iran with “consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered,” but then said he was willing to make a deal just days later. This was followed with reports, as recently as last night, that the US is preparing to attack Iran.
Trump said he views meetings as generally positive, saying one with Rouhani would “be good for the country, good for them, good for us, and good for the world.” Iran has not, as yet, responded to Trump’s comments.
Iranian state media, however, had reported earlier this month that Rouhani’s chief of staff told them that Trump had asked for meetings with Rouhani eight times in the past month, and was rebuffed. Iranian officials had said they were not interested in “one-sided talks under the shadow of a threat.”
Which isn’t to say Iran wouldn’t accept talks under any circumstances, but that Iran is clearly not interested in following the North Korea model of protracted US threats and ever-increasing sanctions even when the negotiations are ongoing.
Iran expert Trita Parsi expressed doubts that Trump would be able to get a “better deal” out of Iran, calling many of Trump’s demands “non-starters.” He added that the bigger deal would need more American concessions to be reached.
This like the rest of our media is treating the prior Iranian statement as if a reply to Trump. It wasn’t. First, Iran said they wouldn’t talk. Then Trump invited it anyway.
Iran would do well to look at the North Korean experience. Once Trump had his meeting, what was impossible and war-is-coming just became entirely possible.
Maybe Iran can have the deal back again, if they just let Trump strut around a bit. He all but said so.
The last deal was already disrespectful. Rouhani literally risked his own scalp accepting such a deal. Expecting him to lower the bar another foot for the party that violated the last deal is nothing short of absurd. The Mullahs would have his heart on a plate. This is just more empty posturing by Trump. He’s posing for the isolationists before things get violent.
Rouhani: “Mr. Trump there will be a regime change in your country. In 2020”.
A regime change in America? Not in near future.Party may change.But America will still be ruled by Netinyahu, Adelson, Saban or their likes.
Yup!
Feel ashamed?
Nope. I’m just a spectator watching the crap.
Spectator or not you gotta be ashamed of your nation being poodle of the gang, that is if you are true American, I mean true American and not part of the gang
Sorry, but I’m a nobody.
Just like any American president.
Trump: OMG IMMA RAIN FIRE ON YOU LIKE NOBODY’S BUSINESS. YOU GONNA PAY! YOU GONNA PAYYYYYYY!!!
Rouhani: ORLY?
Trump: Yo, dawg, want to get a few beers?
While jaw jaw is better than war war, I’m not sure what they hope to accomplish with literally zero framework to start from. Trump did a great job of crapping all over the situation. He probably honestly thinks he can just hammer out some napkin math, trade alpha male gestures, and then straight away to bask in the limelight…mission accomplished.
What’s scarier is what’s gonna happen after the “diplomacy” fails.
Who is Trump to decide if he will meet Rouhani or not.Decisions will be taken by Netinyahu,Adelson, Saban and may be AIPAC.Trump is just to execute their decisions
I don’t know why this came as a surprise to me today, but it did. It’s almost exactly what he did with North Korea, the EU, possibly what’s going on with NAFTA, and even his southern border stuff (though that looks more like a massive gaffe). But almost two years in, it looks like his whole m.o. seems to be cause as much confusion and consternation to as many people as possible, to then look like the hero, the big man, by suddenly switching to the epitome of magnanimity, saving the day–from hmself, and resulting in almost zero accomplished, only, it looks like something was accomplished by virtue of averting a disaster of his own creation, which seems like a big waste of everyone’s time, energy and money with nothing to show for it. (In other words, when it’s all done, NAFTA will look about the same as before he threatened to tear it up, tariffs with China will be lifted and nothing much accomplished, NK will not budge much but the U.S. may save some money on military exercises, etc., etc.) In this instanace, I thought he really had it in for Iran, and again, maybe things will revert to almost-status-quo (old deal plus some Iranian cookies thrown in?) Or maybe he still does have it in for Iran, and just wants to be able to blame the Iranians for if/when it all goes wrong. Or maybe our old friend Justin Raimondo has been right all along? Who can tell anymore?
All this being said, is it all a distracting side-show? There are still all the things the media does not talk about: the war in Yemen brutally waged by bloody Saudi Arabia, which for some reason is not villifed for doing something far worse than Syria (which has not invaded or bombed another country, but is in fact bombed regularly by its neighbour and has been invaded by foreign jihadis). What do we hear about the KSA other than women now get to drive there? Trump’s predecessor helped stoke both conflicts, but Trump has gone all-in on Yemen, and no-one talks about it (FAIR pointed out CNBC devoted one segment to it in a year). Trump’s administration and the Republican controlled congress give the Armed Forces more than they ask for, are bombing more countries than anyone can count at a staggering rate. And yet I only heard about this because someone posted it on Facebook?
An after thought: Is it a devious way sending a warning to Saudi king who said the kingdom won’t retract from its stand on Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees.Of course Netinyahu could be behind this.Who knows, after all.
The Iranian currency is down 18% since Trump re-instated sanctions;
there is a truckers strike now joining the protests;
and then, … Trump offers to talk.
Time is on Trump’s side, very interesting to watch him work.
Oh yeah, very interesting. And so original. We threaten war, we sanction you until you bleed and then we offer to talk. Thuggery 101, the US way.
Iran continues it’s arms and nuke development,
Trump re-instates sanctions.
What’s not to like?
You “think” a nuclear Iran is “Antiwar”, LOL!
Iran doesn’t have any nukes and wasn’t pursuing nukes Nikki.
Trump cited weaknesses in the deal that the leaders of France, Germany and Britain have acknowledged and pledged to improve. Those include:
• Eliminating expiration dates on the most important restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activity, which would allow Iran to resume large-scale processing of nuclear fuel starting in 2025.
• Allowing inspections of military sites, which Iran currently disputes.
• Limiting Iran’s ballistic missile program.
• Addressing Iran’s support for terrorist groups across the Middle East.
BUT wars r wants
to allow the prime sponsor of terror worldwide to continue work on nukes and ICBM’s because he knows you can trust
a theocratic dictatorship to do the right thing???
More neocon talking points. Always neocon talking points. But anyone who says that Nikki Haley is an “excellent” UN Ambassador and who thinks he, Nikki and John Bolton deal in reality must be oblivious to anything else.
In your worldview,
anybody who is anti-Israel is all it takes for your
full on support,
no matter how perverted,
dictatorial or
religiously insane they might be.
I don’t “support” Iran. Not once have I said anything that could be construed as me backing ANY oppressive government like Iran. My support is limited to their rights as a sovereign nation and the 80 million people who are having their lives systematically destroyed by unwarranted sanctions.
Religiously insane? You mean like our allies the Saudi’s and the newly declared theocracy?
You vouch for Iran every time they come up.
Do they have a “sovereign right” to threaten their neighbors and the US?
Do they have a “sovereign right” to rule against their people.
Sovereign rights emanate from democratically elected govts from the PEOPLE who live in a country.
Iran is nothing but a theocratic dictatorship, who rules it’s people and the international community with terror.
They are an insult to humanity. Now go defend the indefensible.
I don’t “vouch” for anyone. Your neocon mind just can’t grasp that .
So the US isn’t a sovereign country either? We threaten(and sanction, does Iran?))the entire world and we have the largest prison population in the world so I guess we “rule” against our own people as well.
Now you’re changing the definition of sovereignty to fit your idiotic narrative. Iran is a sovereign country whether you want to admit it or not. They aren’t capable of projecting terror throughout the international community, only superpowers can do that and we do it very well. And by the way, our staunch ally, Saudi Arabia, is by far the leading exporter of terror in the region and our other staunch ally, Israel, just joined the theocracy club with Iran.
You sound more like Nikki and John every day. Isn’t there a neocon site you can visit to be amongst your kind?
Do you want nuclear proliferation?
That’s the only real issue here.
I think you do, but just can’t admit it.
Right, that must be it. When in doubt say something stupid.
You dodged the question, interesting.
I’m not answering a question you already answered in your mind. And it was irrelevant to anything I said.
It is central to our discussion, interesting you can’t see that.
Hardly. We’d be trying to destroy Iran regardless of nukes.
That is merely a ridiculous assumption on your part.
Why would we if they presented no threat.
Again you cannot answer that simple question,
are you for nuclear proliferation or against it?
Its not an assumption since it’s actually happening. Iran doesn’t have nukes and we’re trying to destroy them through sanctions. And Iran is absolutely no threat to the US.
I answered that question in another comment section. You’re too busy arguing with multiple people and telling them they’re supporters of the brutal theocratic dictatorship of Iran to remember.
Iran is gaming the international community
(made up primarily by money grubbing Euros).
Until Iran ceases it’s support for terrorists,
attempts to get along with it’s neighbors and
cuts out their idiotic “Death to America” chants,
why the heck should we help them economically???
You just said that it was a ridiculous assumption by me saying we were out to destroy Iran regardless of the nukes and then you list the other reasons we’re trying to destroy Iran. You need to take a debating class.
You need a reading comprehension class.
I said we are not going to WAR with Iran, but we sure as H3LL are turning up the heat on them as we should for all of the terror meddling and destabilizing the region.
Both US and Israeli intelligence services claim that IF Iran ever had a “nuke development” program, that program ceased some time prior to 2004.
Are they wrong? Are they lying? Has any evidence ever been publicly produced to suggest that Iran has (or, post-2004, had) a nuclear weapons program?
Trump’s reasons for ending the Iran “deal” are:
• Eliminating expiration dates on the most important restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activity, which would allow Iran to resume large-scale processing of nuclear fuel starting in 2025.
• Allowing inspections of military sites, which Iran currently disputes.
• Limiting Iran’s ballistic missile program.
• Addressing Iran’s support for terrorist groups across the Middle East.
Iran is a destabilizing force in the ME, there is no reason to help them to that end.
Trump did not “end” the Iran “deal” because he has no power to do so.
First of all, there were other parties to the “deal,” so one party violating it does not “end” it.
Secondly, it was eventually codified as a UN Security Council resolution, so unless Trump withdraws the US from the UN or convinces the rest of the Security Council to repeal it, it doesn’t end (and the US is bound by treaty to comply with it).
JCPOA is NOT a treaty,
0bama’s big mistake, (not really he couldn’t get it passed).
BUT the fact remains, is is nothing more than a glorified EO,
that’s why Trump could exit it, easily.
However, even if it was a “treaty” there is precedent to exit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/09/if-the-iran-deal-had-been-a-senate-confirmed-treaty-would-trump-have-been-forced-to-stay-in-nope/?utm_term=.6e980038bf11
The UN Charter is a treaty. The US Senate ratified it 60 years ago. That makes it the Supreme Law of the Land, co-equal with the Constitution, in the United States.
The UN Charter requires member states to adhere to Security Council resolutions.
The JCPOA is a Security Council resolution.
QED, the United States is bound to adhere to the JCPOA.
Prior to it being codified and passed as a Security Council resolution, it wasn’t an EO, “glorified” or otherwise. It was just a US State Department “political commitment.”
Yes, there are precedents to exit treaties. If the US wants to exit the UN charter, then it will no longer be bound by the JCPOA.
Thomas, whatever you want to believe,
the de facto reality is,
the USA has pulled out of the accord
(EO. agreement, accord, or whatever you want to call it)
It’s a fact and no amount of legalistic mumbo jumbo is going to change that FACT.
The fact is that the US has violated the accord, not “pulled out of” the accord.
Driving 90 in a 70 zone that one has no legislative power to repeal is not “pulling out of” the speed limit. It’s violating the speed limit.
Fine, the sanctions are back on, and everybody is adjusting to that fact.
Yes, the sanctions are illegally back on, with two likely incremental outcomes:
1) A little more “don’t bother negotiating with the US — they never keep their end of a deal for very long;” and
2) A little more “screw international law — the US doesn’t go by it, why should we?”
I disagree.
1.) NEVER expect the US to be held to an “agreement”
that is not a formal treaty.
2.) International laws are only binding on govts who have formally agreed
to do so,
and not by a leader’s attempt to circumvent the formal democratic
process with a worthless EO.
You won’t even listen to facts. Just make s**t up and get the last word in.
The fact is the “agreement” was never a treaty.
It was nothing but 0bama’s attempt to circumvent the constitutional requirement to have it pass the senate.
He was acting like one of your dictators, with his “pen and phone”.
And that’s why it is so easy for the next president to reverse his policies.
Thomas Knapp keeps bi**h slapping you with silly thing like facts and you just keep repeating your same bulls**t. You’re hopeless.
The FACT is,
the US is no longer a part of the Iran agreement.
Tom, bless his heart, wants to argue a hypothetical.
BTW, this is what I sent to Tom the last time we crossed swords re. the ability to withdraw from JCPOA.
This is taken right from of the agreement itself!
He chooses to ignore it.
I don’t know how because it IS in the agreement.
Read it for yourself.
2. Termination Under the JCPOA
The JCPOA itself contains provisions on dispute resolution (paragraphs 36-37 of the main text of the agreement, annexed to the text of resolution 2231). Any party can—but is not required to—raise a compliance issue through that dispute resolution mechanism, which includes a Joint Commission, ministerial-level consideration, and consideration by an Advisory Board created by the JCPOA (something akin to an arbitration). However, paragraph 36 of the JCPOA states that:
If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-withdraws-iran-nuclear-agreement-what-comes-next
As I said the last time, GOLD!
I didn’t ignore it last time, and I’m not ignoring it this time. Let me know if the US ever invokes that dispute resolution mechanism.
The mechanism is there, UNDENIABLY,
that is my point.
By virtue of the fact, nobody disputes the US’s right to withdraw I would conclude it was employed.
Yes, there’s a mechanism there for ceasing certain obligations under the JCPOA, although not for withdrawing from it.
There are two ways to withdraw from the JCPOA:
1) Get the Security Council to repeal it; or
2) Withdraw from the UN.
So I send you the language from the JCPOA on how WITHDRAWAL is possible, you ignore it (again) and pull the same stale argument out
in a vain attempt to make a point.
You believe everything in the JCPOA except the withdrawal clauses,
amazing.
These FACTS exist:
the US has withdrawn,
the SC has not repealed the JCPOA
and the US is still in the UN.
Those are FACTS, not hypothetical opinion.
The language from the JCPOA that you quoted says nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada about “withdrawal.” It has provisions for declining to implement certain measures on claims of non-implementation by others.
I’m not sure why you’re so dead-set on portraying violation of the JCPOA as “withdrawal from” the JCPOA.
There are two ways for the US to “withdraw from” the JCPOA. One is getting the UN Security Council to repeal its resolution. The other is US withdrawal from the United Nations. Those are the facts. You don’t have to like them. They’re the facts whether you like them or not.
Under the heading:
Termination under JCPOA
If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.
“Then the participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds TO CEASE PERFORMING IT’S COMMITMENTS under JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UNSC … ”
What is the definition of “termination” to you?
And regardless of your opinion, it has in fact happened.
You rent a house from me. There’s a clause in the lease that says if something needs to be repaired in the house and I don’t do it, you can stop paying rent (“cease performing my commitments”) until it’s fixed. The central air unit stops working. You tell me. I don’t fix it. The next month, instead of a rent check from you, I get a note that you won’t be paying rent until it’s fixed.
You are not “withdrawing from” the lease. You’re just not keeping your side of it because, and while, I’m not keeping mine.
A couple of things you’re leaving out:
1) There have been no credible allegations that Iran has not performed its duties under the JCPOA. The closest thing would be the IAEA’s 2016 note that Iran had 130.1 gallons of heavy water when it is only permitted to have 130 gallons (followed by the US State Department’s note that Iran was “taking steps to export” the rogue 1.6 ounces).
2) Trump did not announce that the US was going to “cease performing its commitments” under the JCPOA. He announced that the US was withdrawing from the JCPOA. Which, as I’ve pointed out, it has no legal power to do under either its own laws or per its treaty obligations under the UN Charter, short of getting the Security Council to repeal the JCPOA resolution, or withdrawing entirely from the UN.
Sanctions were on Iran,
sanctions came off with the proviso that the president certifies compliance on a regular basis to congress.
Whether you (or anyone else agrees with Trump’s rational) he called them out of compliance and the former condition (sanctions) were resumed.
It is done, a fait accompli,
and no UN official or other country has raised the objection you do.
Show me where some UN authority has called Trump to task.
—–
Sanctions were on Iran,
sanctions came off with the proviso that the president certifies compliance on a regular basis to congress.
Whether you (or anyone else agrees with Trump’s rational) he called them out of compliance and the former condition (sanctions) were resumed.
—–
All correct. So why are you so insistent that the US “withdrew” from the deal rather than what you just said it did (which is an allowed process WITHIN the deal)?
Oh, an allowed process within the deal, OK.
So we (the US) invoke the provision to stop the “deal” and re-impose sanctions, LEGALLY.
OK, all legal and it returns our relationship to the former status quo, sanctions.
Yes, I agree and now I think you do also, maybe.
Well, except that the provision doesn’t stop the deal. It simply relieves the US of the duty to perform its end while another party isn’t.
But of course, I ran WAS performing it’s part of the deal. So the only result of the US pretending it has withdrawn, or can withdraw, from the deal, when in fact all it’s doing is lying for the purpose of not having to hold up its end, is further marginalization of the US globally and strengthening of the mullahs in Iran.
However, as a legal matter,
the “agreement” does provide a process for a legal termination for any participant who believes one (or more nations) are not in compliance.
And in doing so,
(whether one agrees the motivations are valid or not),
would not therefore be in violation of a Security Council resolution.
Can we agree on that?
No, because neither the process you describe nor its effects amount to termination of the agreement, as I’ve explained multiple times.
The “process” I described is taken form the agreement entitled
“Termination Under the JCPOA”
What do you believe “TERMINATION” means?
Or is the meaning of is, is?
Further, from the agreement:3. The U.N. Security Council Component
U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA, also terminated all the previous resolutions concerning Iran’s nuclear program: resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010), and 2224 (2015). At the same time, however, operative paragraphs 11-12 of Resolution 2231 created what became known as a “snap-back” mechanism. The mechanism allows a single party to the JCPOA to trigger a process to re-impose Security Council sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program. Operative paragraph 11 further provides (emphasis added):
[The U.N. Security Council] [d]ecides, 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 the JCPOA, it shall vote on a draft resolution to continue in effect the terminations in paragraph 7 (a) of this resolution [which lists the resolutions to be terminated under the JCPOA] . . . .
In other words, if a party to the JCPOA notifies the U.N. Security Council that “significant non-performance of commitments under the JCPOA” have occurred, the council is required to vote on a resolution to continue the suspension of Security Council sanctions. Operative paragraph 12 then provides:
[The Security Council] [d]ecides, 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 . . . 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 . . . .
Thus, if the Security Council does not vote to continue suspending sanctions concerning Iran’s nuclear program, those sanctions will automatically resume within 30 days of the notification.
It is not clear that the U.S. has a basis for notifying the Security Council that Iran is in “significant non-performance” of the JCPOA. While the presidential memorandum mentions two instances of Iranian non-compliance, the IAEA and the other parties to the agreement have repeatedly emphasized that Iran is generally in compliance with its obligations. The U.K., France and Germany reiterated that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA in their statement today.
If the U.S. does attempt to trigger this “snap-back” mechanism, however, it appears that there is little the other members of the Council can do to prevent Security Council sanctions being re-imposed. Even if the notification of non-performance were completely baseless, the U.S. veto power would likely block any attempt by the other members of the Council to pass a resolution that would continue the suspension of relevant U.N. sanctions. In their statement, the U.K., France and Germany seemed to plead with the U.S. not to activate the snap-back mechanism at the Security Council. “We call on the US”, they said, “to do everything possible to preserve the gains for nuclear non-proliferation brought about by the JCPoA, by allowing for a continued enforcement of its main elements.” If the U.S. only re-imposes bilateral sanctions, the JCPOA might survive without it. But if U.N. sanctions are re-imposed, it is doubtful that the agreement would survive. Trump’s memorandum does not explicitly mention triggering the “snap-back” mechanism.
Finally, there is the question of whether United States itself violated its international legal obligations by pulling out of the JCPOA (as opposed to its political commitments to Iran and the other parties). Other parties to the JCPOA have argued that the agreement is legally binding by virtue of its endorsement by the U.N. Security Council. As previously mentioned, however, that was not the position of the Obama administration and commentators have doubted whether resolution 2231 in fact transformed the commitments included in the JCPOA into binding international law. The fact that the part of the JCPOA that outlines those commitments is entitled “Iran and E3/EU+3 will take the following voluntary measures within the timeframe as detailed in this JCPOA and its Annexes” (emphasis added) supports this latter position.
Thanks for all the verbiage establishing that the language “allows a single party to the JCPOA to trigger a process to re-impose Security Council sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program” rather than terminating either the agreement itself or its obligations under the UN Charter and the UN Security Council resolution.
Going 70 miles per hour because a law says “if it’s not raining you can go 70 miles per hour instead of 55 miles per hour” is not “withdrawing from the speed limit law.”
I never said the agreement no longer existed,
I said the US has terminated it’s partnership in the agreement.
And further, it was done so legally,
and the US is not in violation of a SC resolution by doing so.
The US is no longer a party to the agreement.
And the SC could not legally prevent our departure.
The US govt
has terminated IT’S participation in the agreement.
“Terminated”, as in the dictionary definition.
Capisce?
“I said the US has terminated it’s partnership in the agreement. ”
Yes, you’ve said that over and over.
And I’ve pointed out that it did no such thing, and that the only two ways for it to do any such thing are two get the Security Council to repeal its resolution or to withdraw from the UN.
Until such time as it does one of those two things, it is a party to the agreement, just like every other UN member state.
Has the US “withdrawn” and returned to the status quo ante, sanctions?
And if they have,
how is “withdrawal” different that “terminated” from the agreement?
And re. the US’s action, was that illegal and if so, who says it was illegal?
If the US violated a UN SC resolution,
why is no one moving to hold them accountable?
The US has re-implemented sanctions. There are provisions WITHIN THE JCPOA for it do so. Whether or not it should, and whether or not those provisions are being met, are different questions. The provisions exist, and the conduct of the US resembles them.
What the US has not done is “withdraw from” the agreement, because it has no power to do so short of leaving the UN or convincing the Security Council to repeal the resolution. Every UN member state is bound by Security Council resolutions. Period.
I’ve explained this to you about 50 times. You’re clearly not illiterate, so if you’re not understanding this, it’s because you don’t want to, not because you can’t.
Semantics Thomas.
“The provisions WITHIN THE JCPOA … “, use the term”termination” of participation, that is the in the agreement.
YOU continue to ignore the fact.
Therefore the US has the legal right to pursue “termination” of it’s participation per the agreement..
The power to withdraw participation from the agreement,
exists IN THE AGREEMENT(!), by virtue of the termination process.
Technically the US remains a signatory to the original conditions
proposed but has
decided (per the agreement’s “Termination” clause ) to withdraw from it’s original purpose (ending sanctions) to it’s former position of enforcing sanctions.
I have explained this to you 50 times.
You have persistently claimed the US has no legal authority to do what it has IN FACT done.
Further stating that a UN resolution makes is impossible.
I’m the one that provided the information
(contained in the JCPOA),
describing how it is possible to “terminate” (their word) participation and by doing so it was not only possible but perfectly LEGAL.
The net resulting effect is as if, the US never originally signed on in the first place. Making it’s technical original signature null and void, per the termination clause contained therein.
YOU didn’t know the JCPOA had a ‘termination” clause, until I provided it. That fact destroyed your argument that the US had no legal authority to withdraw it’s participation. You were caught off base, and this wandering discussion is simply a vain attempt to save face.
Good day.
Nice try. Better luck next time.
There was no “try”, the US did nothing illegal.
You were wrong.
And I would defy you to prove otherwise.
In a sentence:
the US was perfectly within it’s rights to withdraw participation from the JCPOA per the provisions contained therein.
Always glad to help.
The US was perfectly within its rights to reinstate sanctions per the terms of the JCPOA.
That is not withdrawing from the JCPOA.
I’m still not sure if you’re lying to yourself or just to everyone else here, but your obsession with “proving” that the US did something it did not do is pretty weird.
The US withdrew from participating
in the suspension of sanctions against Iran,
by electing to follow the TERMINATION clause in the agreement.
Terminating the US’s suspension of sanctions, resulting in the re-instating of sanctions against Iran, as before the agreement.
That is “withdrawing” from the original purpose of the agreement,
per the agreement,
to return to the status before the agreement,
which is now, once again, the enforcement of sanctions.
For the US at least,
it means the agreement is null and void.
So what was the compliance issue? Trump said it was a bad deal not that Iran wasn’t in compliance.
I sent you the list of issues he cited yesterday,
you don’t want answers,
you want to pretend you have a case.
The FACT remains, in the “agreement”
there are provisions for withdrawing.
I suspect that if there were provisions for withdrawing, you would cite them, instead of citing something else and pretending that it’s a provision for withdrawing.
Exactly.
1) I only expect the US to be held to a formal treaty (the UN Charter, formally ratified by the US Senate, which binds the US to UN Security Council resolutions like the JCPOA).
2) International laws are only binding on governments which have formally agreed to do so, as the US did when it ratified the UN Charter.
Is there any particular reason that you keep pretending that the JCPOA was an executive order. It never was. In fact, it was LESS than an executive order, it was a mere State Department Political Commitment, which could have been changed or withdrawn from at any time — until the UN Security Council codified it as a resolution, at which point it became binding on all UN member states.
But the fact remains, the US has not re-certified it,
and therefore it is ended for the US.
It’s a fact.
Noteworthy in all of this is there are no real repercussions from anybody.
Iran like the United States has been using their money to sow trouble rather than help their people Same as Obama did so we wanted a regime change in the USA . The same thing should happened to Iran if the don’t straighten up
Simple Simon sez.
(snore)