The Iran Deal & the UN
The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Wildear
Retriever Coach
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: The Iran Deal & the UN

  1. #1
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    9,024

    Default The Iran Deal & the UN

    So, the UN Security Council has approved the Iran deal ... and herein lies the problem with the manner in which this whole thing was "manipulated" ... and I DO mean manipulated ...

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-secur...ss-objections/

    UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council scheduled a vote for first thing Monday morning on a resolution endorsing the Iran nuclear deal.
    The resolution was circulated to council members Wednesday by the United States. Members were also briefed by both Iran and the other countries that negotiated the landmark agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program.


    With all five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council involved in the marathon Iran negotiations, the resolution's adoption Monday was almost certain.
    The resolution implements an intricate deal that places restrictions on Iran's nuclear program while allowing relief from sanctions that the country's leaders say have hurt its economy.
    Monday's vote will come despite calls from some U.S. lawmakers to delay Security Council approval until Congress reviews the deal.
    CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk says the resolution will make the Iran nuclear deal international law, but will delay its official implementation for 90 days, to allow for the U.S. Congress' consideration.

    The President ends up making this "international law" without consulting the Congress at all? Even Iran said that it's participation in this "deal" would not be a fact until THEIR governing body reviewed it. Yet, the US did not make that stipulation for itself?

    So ... does this last sentence mean that no matter what Congress does ... even if they had the votes to override the POTUS's veto, the US would still be bound by this new international law? The Constitution allows that?

    Falk explained that while Congress cannot block the implementation of the deal, if the legislative body votes against it and has enough votes to override a promised veto from President Obama, it is not clear what would happen next.

    A U.S. official told CBS News that American law doesn't "trump" U.N. resolutions, but if Congress were to vote against the measure -- and garner enough votes to override a presidential veto -- lawmakers could stop U.S. sanctions being lifted, which could prompt Iran to declare the U.S. as non-compliant with the terms of the deal and to back out.
    If U.S. lawmakers were to decide after Monday's vote that they wanted changes to the terms of the agreement, it would essentially be too late, because it would require the Security Council to propose a new resolution -- and there would likely be little appetite for such deliberations among the other negotiating partners.
    The chairman of the Senate's foreign relations committee, Bob Corker, on Thursday wrote a letter to President Obama saying, "We urge you to postpone the vote at the United Nations until after Congress considers this agreement."
    But the chief U.S. negotiator in the Iran talks, Wendy Sherman, rejected that idea Thursday.


    She told reporters: "It would have been a little difficult when all of the (countries negotiating with Iran) wanted to go to the United Nations to get an endorsement of this, since it is a product of the United Nations process, for us to say, 'Well, excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress." (Why? Iran made that stipulation with no problem. If their governing body rejects the deal, would Iran also be in violation of this new "international law"? Or because they specifically included their stipulation will they be free to ignore the Security Council?)
    Sherman said the council resolution allows the "time and space" for a congressional review before the measure actually takes effect.

    I think this easily is executive overreach in binding the US to what amounts to an "international treaty" without the consent of the Senate.

    Does this mean that the Executive Branch can cede US sovereignty to the UN at any time on any issue it wishes to do so?

    You might say that when the POTUS signed the Corker bill he was agreeing to letting Congress review the deal BEFORE he would go ahead and pull a fast one as he has done here.

    Of course, shame on the Republicans ... if any of them still believe ANYthing the WH says about ANYthing, they are even dumber than they look. I'm sure the WH will exert every possible pressure on the D members of Congress to tow the party line.

    Even if this deal were a good one, what has been done here will be a real threat to Constitutional precedent. Of course, if it was a great deal, it could have followed the Constitutional process with confidence of Senate approval, without having to resort to this duplicity.

    I've read pros and cons on the Corker bill's impact on how this comes down ... Corker and those who voted for his bill may have been "had". If so, then they will share the "legacy" of whatever results from this "treaty".





    Last edited by Gerry Clinchy; 07-20-2015 at 05:00 PM.
    [email protected]
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    9,024

    Default

    Ooops ... but Iran says that the deal the Security Council approved is not really what they agreed to ...

    Iran’s Foreign Ministry claims, for example, that the deal does not actually cover its ballistic missile program, as advertised. Restrictions on ballistic missiles are to be ended after eight years, according to the JCPOA. However, Iran says, according to the Times of Israel, that the UN Security C0uncil resolution and the deal do not apply to its own missiles because they “have not been conceived to carry nuclear weapons.”

    Similarly, there is confusion as to whether the deal prevents Iran from accelerating its nuclear program after the deal expires, or whether that is just an option. Such (voluntary) restrictions would have to be approved under the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the Iranian parliament is supposed to ratify, but there is no deadline for it to do so; it could wait until deal expires, in theory.

    Alan Dershowitz, who has worked on UN resolutions on the Middle East, suggests there may not have been a “meeting of the minds” on the Iran deal at all: “Is it a postponement for an uncertain number of years — 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 — of Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon? Or is it an assurance that ‘Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon?'”

    These differences go far beyond the usual disputes over the precise interpretations of terms in an agreement. There seems to be a wide gulf between Iran and the West about what, in fact, is covered by the agreement. Other areas of confusion in the deal include access for international inspectors to Iranian military sites, which the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps apparently is refusing to accept or allow.

    It will be hard to enforce a deal that is not, in fact, an agreement.

    The US must have some brilliant negotiating skills, ya think?
    [email protected]
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #3
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    9,024

    Default

    I was curious who were the current members of the UN Security Council ... since they voted unanimously in favor of the Iran deal.

    Russia, China, UK, France, US ... permanent, veto-wielding members

    The others:
    Angola, Chad, Nigeria ... African group
    Chile, Venezuela ... Latin America/Caribbean group
    Jordan, Malaysia ... Asia Pacific group
    Lithuania ... Eastern Pacific group
    New Zealand, Spain ... Western European & Others group

    Makes me think that the other 10 members really have no power at all, except to debate issues. They have no veto power. Probably each country in the whole UN is ultimately "beholden" to one of the 5 permanent members and will usually vote with that benefactor or ideological colleague.
    [email protected]
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  5. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  6. #4
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    9,024

    Default

    Oh, my ... John Kerry is troubled by the the Ayatollah's statements about not changing their behaviors.
    “We are not kidding when we talk about the importance of pushing back against extremism, against support for terrorism and proxies who are destabilizing other countries,” he said. “It’s unacceptable.”
    I'm sure that Iran trembles when Kerry tells them we're not kidding ...
    [email protected]
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  7. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Linden, VA
    Posts
    5,904

    Default

    I hope the Iranians keep talking enough smack to outrage enough members of our congress to override a presidential veto of this deal.

    Let's see what would be the result of that; the sanctions lifted, a nuclear capable Iran, and egg all over the jug ears and Kerry's faces. Works for me......

  8. #6
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    9,024
    [email protected]
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •