My apologies, I was referring to the treaty/agreement to be signed. I do understand it is frozen assets dating back to 1979, correct?
I was opining that if anyone was expecting the release of the frozen funds to be held up because the agreement was going to be held up in the legislative branch, I have seen nothing at all from that branch of the government that would indicate any kind of spine or responsibility.
The agreement/treaty does need to be approved by Congress before the frozen funds could be released doesn’t it? (that is a question...my assumption could be erroneous. For all I know, he is going to use an executive order or something like that, and who on earth would stand up and tell him he can’t?)
I would think the treaty has to become law (approved or whatever) before any of it’s tenets could legally be implemented.
To give those funds back before that, would be unilateral action which is to my understanding not in accordance with the law.