Posted on 04/26/2020 4:22:05 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is preparing a legal argument that the United States remains a participant in the Iran nuclear accord that President Trump has renounced, part of an intricate strategy to pressure the United Nations Security Council to extend an arms embargo on Tehran or see far more stringent sanctions reimposed on the country.
The strategy has been described in recent days by administration officials as they begin to circulate a new resolution in the Security Council that would bar countries from exporting conventional arms to Iran after the current ban expires in October. Any effort to renew the arms embargo is almost certain to be opposed by Russia and, publicly or quietly, by China. The Russians have already told American and European officials they are eager to resume conventional arms sales to Iran.
In an effort to force the issue, Mr. Pompeo has approved a plan, bound to be opposed by many of Washington’s European allies, under which the United States would, in essence, claim it legally remains a “participant state” in the nuclear accord that Mr. Trump has denounced — but only for the purposes of invoking a “snapback” that would restore the U.N. sanctions on Iran that were in place before the accord.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
A Kuchner/President riff...A Pompeo/President riff.
A Pattern...Who's next?
NYT via MSN? Not the most reliable sources
WTF is this all about??
New York Slimes...that’s all you need to know.
Pompeo would not prepare such a argument without the President's knowledge and support. This legal argument makes no sense since the Iran deal is now no longer binding. Any agreement that is terminated in full, is not binding on any of the participants. Unless this is a ruse to push to maintain existing sanctions, there is not point to this.
NYT all the news thats sh## to print
The legal basis for the US position is not conveyed in the NY Times article, but it is not as illogical as it may seem. People and companies frequently go to court after they have parted ways. The Iran nuclear deal no doubt endorses the idea that some provisions have continuing obligations. Otherwise, a country could cheat, withdraw from the deal, and then claim that it cannot be sanctioned because it is no longer in the deal.
I see more like this: what is the mechanism for leaving or cancelling the agreement? Since it was never ratified by the Senate, it’s not clear.
It reminds me of the old math problem:
There’s three frogs on a log. One decides to jump off. How many frogs remain on the log?
Answer: three.
...part of an intricate strategy to pressure the United Nations Security Council to extend an arms embargo on Tehran or see far more stringent sanctions reimposed on the country. The strategy has been described in recent days by administration officials as they begin to circulate a new resolution in the Security Council that would bar countries from exporting conventional arms to Iran after the current ban expires in October. Any effort to renew the arms embargo is almost certain to be opposed by Russia and, publicly or quietly, by China.
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.