Posted on 05/10/2018 7:28:27 AM PDT by edzo4
President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
“is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,”
Just a piece of paper.
So how did the treasury legally cut them a check? Sounds like arrests should be occurring.
P.s. This is why Kerry, et al, are so upset. Iran money is probably being laundered back into their pockets.
The Iran deal was just another leftist pension.
Remember way back a couple of weeks ago when the left insisted that since Trump hadn’t signed the Stormy Daniels NDA, it was invalid. Wonder how much concern they’ll muster over this little fact.
You and your d**ned logic! Stop it!
Can someone explain to me how Obongo can send 100+ Billion dollars in un-marked plane to Iran but Trump can’t allocate 20 for the wall to protect our border?
thanks
President Trump should put the above in a tweet (or two).
And if/when the MSM refuses to carry the tweets to the American people, Trump should request a few minutes of prime time for an address to the American people, in which he reads the above out loud and explains exactly why he has been calling it a terrible deal.
The abominations that Obama's administration created are astounding and the terrible corruption must be exposed -- in addition to being reversed and obliterated.
Good point.
There was no check cut. There were pallets of cash, comprising many denominations and many currencies. Certainly it was laundered cash from major drug related cabals.
and slave trade. Cannot forget slave trade dollars.
Lurch put the US in a situation whereby we would have to defend the [Islamic Republic of Iran] if Israel attacked it.
Watch: Kerry Indicates US Will Defend Iran from Israel (video at link above)
Kerry indirectly tells Senate deal will have US protect Iranian nuclear program from Israeli sabotage; 'wait till we get to that point.'
US Secretary of State John Kerry indirectly conceded that the US would defend Iran's nuclear program from Israeli sabotage on Thursday, in a hearing at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in which he was grilled over the deal reached last Tuesday.
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) put Kerry on the spot when he asked him and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz whether the controversial articles in Annex III on page 142 of the 159-page deal would stipulate that the US block Israeli attempts to scupper the Iranian nuclear threat.
The articles in question state that the US, world powers and the EU obligate to "co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage."
Moniz did not reject the possibility but tried to deflect the implication of betrayal of Israeli security interests, saying, “I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards. All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”
Undeterred, Rubio responded, "I guess that's my point. If Israel conducts an airstrike on a physical facility, does this deal...require us to help Iran protect and respond to that threat?"
The secretary of energy hesitatingly replied by claiming that the clause would not obligate the US to respond to an Israeli airstrike.
Kerry then got involved, saying, "the purpose of that is to be able to have longer-term guarantees as we enter a world in which cyber warfare is increasingly a concern for everybody. If you are going to have a nuclear capacity, you clearly want to be able to make sure that those are adequately protected.”
Responding to Kerry's hint that the clause is meant to defend Iran from "cyber warfare," Rubio asked if the deal obligates the US to defend Iran from an Israeli cyber attack.
"I assure you that we will be coordinating very, very closely with Israel as we do on every aspect of Israel's security," said Kerry, tellingly refusing to directly answer what the deal obligates the US to do in such a scenario.
"That's not how I read this," replied Rubio.
"I don't see any way possible that we will be in conflict with Israel with respect to what we might want to do there, and I think we just have to wait until we get to that point," responded the secretary of state, essentially indicating that America's actions won't be clear until the moment of truth.
Coordination with or against Israel?
Despite the claims of "coordination" with Israel, the Israeli response to the clause shows that the Jewish state understands it to be a promise to defend Iran's nuclear program from Israel's attempts to defend itself.
"The US needs to defend Iran from an attack on its march to an Iranian (nuclear) bomb, because of the excuse that the nuclear (facilities) are for civilian purposes?," a senior Israeli diplomat at the Prime Minister's Office said Monday.
The clause is all the more significant given that a number of cyber sabotage attempts in recent years have successfully halted Iran's presumed march to the nuclear bomb - most famously the 2010 Stuxnet virus. Those cyber attacks have been popularly attributed to Israel, as well as US President Barack Obama.
Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon in May 2012 indirectly hinted that Israel may have been behind a computer virus that followed Stuxnet and was launched against Iran, known as the "Flame" malware.
The cyber sabotage option is all the more important due to Iran's development of its physical defense systems potentially blocking an airstrike; a top Iranian general announced last week that Iran will unveil new missile defense systems in September including its own version of the Russian advanced S-300 system.
It has been warned that the advanced systems would be able to block an Israeli or American airstrike aiming to take out Iran's covert nuclear program that reportedly is aiming to build a nuclear arsenal."
Without signatures from either party, it isn’t even a Deal. Maybe a Memo of Vague Political Intentions? And why is John F’n Kerry still out there actively subverting the administration legally installed by We The People? The weather is better now. Boston wants its windsurfer back.
Isn’t having a memory a bitch. So, so, many conflicts of News (opinion) reports vs. the actual facts.
From long ago college business classes, I remember the accounting prof saying there are only two times you use cash. One is small incidental expenses, the other is for illegal transactions.
I think I know which this one was.
P.s. This is why Kerry, et al, are so upset. Iran money is probably being laundered back into their pockets.
...
I suspect that happens with most foreign aid. And it certainly would have happened with the fortune thrown at the Paris Climate Scam.
Obama gets a Nobel prize for doing nothing now Kerry also shown for doing nothing. OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has quite a legacy
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.