As efforts to get anti-Iran sanctions through the UN fail at every turn, the Trump Administration is keen to talk about “snapback” sanctions on Iran, suggesting they can impose those at a moment’s notice? But can they? It’s not clear.
President Obama presented snapback sanctions in selling the P5+1 nuclear deal, saying the US could force all UN sanctions back to pre-deal levels. Yet years after the US withdrew from that deal, it’s not at all clear they’d retain that power anymore.
The administration has argued they’re still part of the P5+1 deal despite publicly disavowing it, and that this means the US retains all its powers under the deal with none of the obligations. That’s probably not going to convince anybody else, however, and Russia and China will surely block any measures at the UN.
This leaves the US claiming they can unilaterally dictate these sanctions, and threatening to do so. Even if the world responds negatively, it’s not at all clear that’s going to preclude the administration from trying to take this step.
How can the US be “still part of a deal” which they NEVER honoured and which they withdrew from with great fanfare and ringing of bells and whistles? Saying it was the “worst deal ever” and the “honourable” US of A could NEVER be party to such a deal. Now suddenly they claim to have rights to remain in the deal that they abandoned . Makes a hell of a lot of sense – NONSENSE.
Oh, yes, Trump can–he has a unique ability to simultaneously hold two opposing thoughts in his cranium.
Plus he can pick out the picture of an elephant and remember 5 words ALL IN A ROW! And, of course, brag about it.
These mongrels will write a law for anything. They legalized torture in Iraq.
No they just committed War Crimes in Iraq, The Geneva Conventions specifically make it a War Crime to write laws that mean that their War Criminals cannot be prosecuted, Schedule 4 Article 148, which is part of US Treaty Law. Article 148
No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.
True. But the war criminals are living the good life. George got himself a library named after him, spends his leisure time painting and is best buds with Michelle and Ellen.
“The Geneva Conventions specifically make it a War Crime to write laws that mean that their War Criminals cannot be prosecuted, Schedule 4 Article 148”
It may be that the Geneva Conventions “specifically make it a War Crime to write laws that mean that their War Criminals cannot be prosecuted,” but if so it’s not in the article you cite and quote. The “breaches referrred to in the preceding article” are the crimes. That clause is just a claim that the “High Contracting Parties” are in fact bound by it, not a claim that pretending otherwise is itself a crime.
the Preceding article refers to what is a War Crime itself as a Grave breach, I have had this discussion with Benjamin Ferencz whom I contacted through an article here on Antiwar.com on this particular subject, this was way back in the early 2000’s, and he was adamant that when Congress passed laws that protected US Soldiers in Iraq, as well as US Contractors, both were War Crimes under Geneva. I will point out that the some branches of the Australian Government also have had advice that persons that went to work for US Contractors in Iraq, were considered poisonous fruit in that their actions because of the US Congress making laws that made them immune form prosecutions for their actions in Iraq, were in fact illegal acts against the Geneva Conventions and were considered War Crimes although not Grave breaches unless they were involved in such grave breaches themselves. however those branches of the Australian Government would no longer employ those persons, that went to work in Iraq, because they had legal advice their actions and terms of employment included terms that breached the Geneva Conventions. noting that the Geneva Conventions for the US and Australia are identical in wording as they are International treaties.
I should note that I read the letter of one of the Contractors who reapplied for his old job with an Australian Government department and that was the response given to him for refusal to reinstate his former Position, I also read identical refusals from other similar agencies that he applied to and received similar responses from!
All I did was point out that the Article you cite doesn’t support the claim you make. I have no opinion on whether the claim you make is true or not.
Pompeo “US to ‘stop at nothing to extend arms embargo against Iran”
What else to expect from gangsters and criminals.
Pompoo is a freak who does NOT understand the word NO. When I was six years old, she would tell me: “No means no!” By eight I learned no means no…..
The rest of the world is watching in horror as the US continues to slide down the tubes into oblivion.
The delusional Trump and gang have only months to stay in power…!
Resolution 2231 endorsed the JCPOA so they are not separate. Although US was named as a participant state under 2231 what does that mean?. Clearly it refers to participating in the agreement as an active member. When US withdrew in 2018 it lost any rights to invoke anything. It would be a crazy legal interpretation that says you retain rights under a deal while not fulfilling any obligations.
The US is becoming increasingly isolated from the international community. I really look forward to seeing the world’s biggest bully getting its well-deserved comeuppance. Time for the rest of the world to slap some serious sanctions on the US and see how they like a taste of their own medicine.
At this point I think the world has far more sympathy for Iran than it has for the US. The US is a rogue state now and there isn’t much respect for them left.