Iran president says 'no sense' in renegotiating nuclear deal

[Doc1]

Sorry, it's non-binding, it doesn't need to go anywhere, it can and will just be ignored. Iran got what they wanted, their money.

Ignored how?

Do you understand what the deal entails?

It is not a "treaty", it is an "executive action". As such it is non-binding. It's really not that hard to comprehend. Besides, like I said Iran already got their money, that's all they really wanted.

Apparently it is pretty hard for you to comprehend.

The US could pass a law to reinstate sanctions against Iran - but the rest of the world isn't going to - and US sanctions alone will have almost no punitive result against Iran.

Needless to say, that's not going to happen either, because there are already plenty of US companies making a mint selling to Iran.

LOL, why is it so hard for you to comprehend that it ISN'T a treaty and it is non-binding. Don't think I haven't noticed your failure to deal with that. Why is it Libs always need the "approval" of others? A man's, or a Nation's for that matter, integrity depends on no one but themselves. Who cares what anyone else does, were you worried about what everyone thought in High School too?
Again....it is NOT a treaty, it is an Executive Agreement. We are not bound by anything in it.

I think you might want to go back and read my post again. I think you missed the point.

Nope, your point has nothing to do with what I've been saying.
My only point has been that it is NOT treaty, it is non-binding. As for Iran, they got their money, that's all they wanted. As for the sanctions, immaterial and just because the other kids won't play doesn't mean we shouldn't if that's what we dcide to do. It's very simple.

 

[Doc1]

LOL, why is it so hard for you to comprehend that it ISN'T a treaty and it is non-binding. Don't think I haven't noticed your failure to deal with that. Why is it Libs always need the "approval" of others? A man's, or a Nation's for that matter, integrity depends on no one but themselves. Who cares what anyone else does, were you worried about what everyone thought in High School too?
Again....it is NOT a treaty, it is an Executive Agreement. We are not bound by anything in it.

I don't see the disagreement......

It's not a Treaty. Doctor isn't saying it is that I can see.

Actually he is He is trying to change the direction of the conversation, deflecting from my point. MY point is what I'm discussing and since joined in that's where the conversation will stay directed.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ignored how?

Do you understand what the deal entails?

It is not a "treaty", it is an "executive action". As such it is non-binding. It's really not that hard to comprehend. Besides, like I said Iran already got their money, that's all they really wanted.

Apparently it is pretty hard for you to comprehend.

The US could pass a law to reinstate sanctions against Iran - but the rest of the world isn't going to - and US sanctions alone will have almost no punitive result against Iran.

Needless to say, that's not going to happen either, because there are already plenty of US companies making a mint selling to Iran.

LOL, why is it so hard for you to comprehend that it ISN'T a treaty and it is non-binding. Don't think I haven't noticed your failure to deal with that. Why is it Libs always need the "approval" of others? A man's, or a Nation's for that matter, integrity depends on no one but themselves. Who cares what anyone else does, were you worried about what everyone thought in High School too?
Again....it is NOT a treaty, it is an Executive Agreement. We are not bound by anything in it.

I think you might want to go back and read my post again. I think you missed the point.

Nope, your point has nothing to do with what I've been saying.
My only point has been that it is NOT treaty, it is non-binding. As for Iran, they got their money, that's all they wanted. As for the sanctions, immaterial and just because the other kids won't play doesn't mean we shouldn't if that's what we dcide to do. It's very simple.

You're completely correct - my point has nothing to do with what you're saying.

Which is why I can't for the life of me figure out why you keep repeating it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

LOL, why is it so hard for you to comprehend that it ISN'T a treaty and it is non-binding. Don't think I haven't noticed your failure to deal with that. Why is it Libs always need the "approval" of others? A man's, or a Nation's for that matter, integrity depends on no one but themselves. Who cares what anyone else does, were you worried about what everyone thought in High School too?
Again....it is NOT a treaty, it is an Executive Agreement. We are not bound by anything in it.

I don't see the disagreement......

It's not a Treaty. Doctor isn't saying it is that I can see.

Actually he is He is trying to change the direction of the conversation, deflecting from my point. MY point is what I'm discussing and since joined in that's where the conversation will stay directed.

You mean I'm trying "deflect" from your pedantry and instead discussing reality?

Whether or not Trump "ignores" the deal will have no effect - the deal will still be there.

 

[Doc1]

It is not a "treaty", it is an "executive action". As such it is non-binding. It's really not that hard to comprehend. Besides, like I said Iran already got their money, that's all they really wanted.

Apparently it is pretty hard for you to comprehend.

The US could pass a law to reinstate sanctions against Iran - but the rest of the world isn't going to - and US sanctions alone will have almost no punitive result against Iran.

Needless to say, that's not going to happen either, because there are already plenty of US companies making a mint selling to Iran.

LOL, why is it so hard for you to comprehend that it ISN'T a treaty and it is non-binding. Don't think I haven't noticed your failure to deal with that. Why is it Libs always need the "approval" of others? A man's, or a Nation's for that matter, integrity depends on no one but themselves. Who cares what anyone else does, were you worried about what everyone thought in High School too?
Again....it is NOT a treaty, it is an Executive Agreement. We are not bound by anything in it.

I think you might want to go back and read my post again. I think you missed the point.

Nope, your point has nothing to do with what I've been saying.
My only point has been that it is NOT treaty, it is non-binding. As for Iran, they got their money, that's all they wanted. As for the sanctions, immaterial and just because the other kids won't play doesn't mean we shouldn't if that's what we dcide to do. It's very simple.

You're completely correct - my point has nothing to do with what you're saying.

Which is why I can't for the life of me figure out why you keep repeating it.

When you engaged, you engaged on what I was talking about.
Good, I'm glad you agree finally.
The agreement means nothing at all.
It is non-binding.
Whether anyone else reinstitutes the sanctions should have no bearing on anything we do.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Apparently it is pretty hard for you to comprehend.

The US could pass a law to reinstate sanctions against Iran - but the rest of the world isn't going to - and US sanctions alone will have almost no punitive result against Iran.

Needless to say, that's not going to happen either, because there are already plenty of US companies making a mint selling to Iran.

LOL, why is it so hard for you to comprehend that it ISN'T a treaty and it is non-binding. Don't think I haven't noticed your failure to deal with that. Why is it Libs always need the "approval" of others? A man's, or a Nation's for that matter, integrity depends on no one but themselves. Who cares what anyone else does, were you worried about what everyone thought in High School too?
Again....it is NOT a treaty, it is an Executive Agreement. We are not bound by anything in it.

I think you might want to go back and read my post again. I think you missed the point.

Nope, your point has nothing to do with what I've been saying.
My only point has been that it is NOT treaty, it is non-binding. As for Iran, they got their money, that's all they wanted. As for the sanctions, immaterial and just because the other kids won't play doesn't mean we shouldn't if that's what we dcide to do. It's very simple.

You're completely correct - my point has nothing to do with what you're saying.

Which is why I can't for the life of me figure out why you keep repeating it.

When you engaged, you engaged on what I was talking about.
Good, I'm glad you agree finally.
The agreement means nothing at all.
It is non-binding.
Whether anyone else reinstitutes the sanctions should have no bearing on anything we do.

The US reinstating sanctions alone will do more harm to American businesses than it will to Iran.

That's the part you're missing.

 

[Doc1]

LOL, why is it so hard for you to comprehend that it ISN'T a treaty and it is non-binding. Don't think I haven't noticed your failure to deal with that. Why is it Libs always need the "approval" of others? A man's, or a Nation's for that matter, integrity depends on no one but themselves. Who cares what anyone else does, were you worried about what everyone thought in High School too?
Again....it is NOT a treaty, it is an Executive Agreement. We are not bound by anything in it.

I think you might want to go back and read my post again. I think you missed the point.

Nope, your point has nothing to do with what I've been saying.
My only point has been that it is NOT treaty, it is non-binding. As for Iran, they got their money, that's all they wanted. As for the sanctions, immaterial and just because the other kids won't play doesn't mean we shouldn't if that's what we dcide to do. It's very simple.

You're completely correct - my point has nothing to do with what you're saying.

Which is why I can't for the life of me figure out why you keep repeating it.

When you engaged, you engaged on what I was talking about.
Good, I'm glad you agree finally.
The agreement means nothing at all.
It is non-binding.
Whether anyone else reinstitutes the sanctions should have no bearing on anything we do.

The US reinstating sanctions alone will do more harm to American businesses than it will to Iran.

That's the part you're missing.

But that doesn't mean he won't do it, and I have no idea what he will or won't do. As for hurting our business, not an issue for me. They are a rogue Nation and need to be dealt with. In my little world integrity "trumps" (no pun intended) commerce.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think you might want to go back and read my post again. I think you missed the point.

Nope, your point has nothing to do with what I've been saying.
My only point has been that it is NOT treaty, it is non-binding. As for Iran, they got their money, that's all they wanted. As for the sanctions, immaterial and just because the other kids won't play doesn't mean we shouldn't if that's what we dcide to do. It's very simple.

You're completely correct - my point has nothing to do with what you're saying.

Which is why I can't for the life of me figure out why you keep repeating it.

When you engaged, you engaged on what I was talking about.
Good, I'm glad you agree finally.
The agreement means nothing at all.
It is non-binding.
Whether anyone else reinstitutes the sanctions should have no bearing on anything we do.

The US reinstating sanctions alone will do more harm to American businesses than it will to Iran.

That's the part you're missing.

But that doesn't mean he won't do it, and I have no idea what he will or won't do. As for hurting our business, not an issue for me. They are a rogue Nation and need to be dealt with. In my little world integrity "trumps" (no pun intended) commerce.

"Integrity" doesn't mean anything in relation to international relations.

 

[Doc1]

Nope, your point has nothing to do with what I've been saying.
My only point has been that it is NOT treaty, it is non-binding. As for Iran, they got their money, that's all they wanted. As for the sanctions, immaterial and just because the other kids won't play doesn't mean we shouldn't if that's what we dcide to do. It's very simple.

You're completely correct - my point has nothing to do with what you're saying.

Which is why I can't for the life of me figure out why you keep repeating it.

When you engaged, you engaged on what I was talking about.
Good, I'm glad you agree finally.
The agreement means nothing at all.
It is non-binding.
Whether anyone else reinstitutes the sanctions should have no bearing on anything we do.

The US reinstating sanctions alone will do more harm to American businesses than it will to Iran.

That's the part you're missing.

But that doesn't mean he won't do it, and I have no idea what he will or won't do. As for hurting our business, not an issue for me. They are a rogue Nation and need to be dealt with. In my little world integrity "trumps" (no pun intended) commerce.

"Integrity" doesn't mean anything in relation to international relations.

Only to those who never had it in the first place. It isn't subjective, and it isn't something one turns off and on depending on the dictates in any given situation.

 

[toomuchtime_]

President Hassan Rouhani said Tuesday there was no chance of Iran renegotiating the nuclear deal with world powers if US President-elect Donald Trump demands it.

"The nuclear deal is finished, it has been approved by the UN Security Council and has become an international document. It is a multilateral accord and there is no sense in renegotiating it," said Rouhani at a news conference a year on from the deal coming into force.

Trump frequently criticised the nuclear deal during campaigning and called for fresh negotiations, but has refused to be drawn on his plans since being elected.

His nominee for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has called for a "full review" of the deal.

"Mr Trump, the president-elect, has made various statements that the nuclear deal does not satisfy him, that it was not a good deal or even that it was the worst deal ever," said Rouhani.

"These are mostly slogans, and I don't think that when he enters the White House, something will happen. It is not a bilateral deal that he can decide he likes or doesn't like," the president added.

The deal was signed between Iran, the US, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.

EU and British officials have this week said they would not support any renegotiation of the deal, which places strict curbs on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for a lifting of international sanctions.

The agreement contains a provision that if anyone of the parties decides to end it, it will end, so no agreement with the Europeans is necessary. If the US says it is over, it is over and the sanctions are immediately reinstated with exceptions made for deals that are in progress at the time. Before Obama bailed Iran out, its economy was circling the drain, so if the Iranians decide Trump is serious enough about renegotiating the agreement, they will renegotiate.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're completely correct - my point has nothing to do with what you're saying.

Which is why I can't for the life of me figure out why you keep repeating it.

When you engaged, you engaged on what I was talking about.
Good, I'm glad you agree finally.
The agreement means nothing at all.
It is non-binding.
Whether anyone else reinstitutes the sanctions should have no bearing on anything we do.

The US reinstating sanctions alone will do more harm to American businesses than it will to Iran.

That's the part you're missing.

But that doesn't mean he won't do it, and I have no idea what he will or won't do. As for hurting our business, not an issue for me. They are a rogue Nation and need to be dealt with. In my little world integrity "trumps" (no pun intended) commerce.

"Integrity" doesn't mean anything in relation to international relations.

Only to those who never had it in the first place. It isn't subjective, and it isn't something one turns off and on depending on the dictates in any given situation.

No, you're not still not getting it.

What you think is morally right is meaningless.

The US reinstating sanctions against Iran by themselves would be meaningless in terms of "integrity", and would result in hurting the US more than it would hurt Iran.

It's equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot, and somehow hoping it'll hurt someone else.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

President Hassan Rouhani said Tuesday there was no chance of Iran renegotiating the nuclear deal with world powers if US President-elect Donald Trump demands it.

"The nuclear deal is finished, it has been approved by the UN Security Council and has become an international document. It is a multilateral accord and there is no sense in renegotiating it," said Rouhani at a news conference a year on from the deal coming into force.

Trump frequently criticised the nuclear deal during campaigning and called for fresh negotiations, but has refused to be drawn on his plans since being elected.

His nominee for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has called for a "full review" of the deal.

"Mr Trump, the president-elect, has made various statements that the nuclear deal does not satisfy him, that it was not a good deal or even that it was the worst deal ever," said Rouhani.

"These are mostly slogans, and I don't think that when he enters the White House, something will happen. It is not a bilateral deal that he can decide he likes or doesn't like," the president added.

The deal was signed between Iran, the US, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.

EU and British officials have this week said they would not support any renegotiation of the deal, which places strict curbs on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for a lifting of international sanctions.

The agreement contains a provision that if anyone of the parties decides to end it, it will end, so no agreement with the Europeans is necessary. If the US says it is over, it is over and the sanctions are immediately reinstated with exceptions made for deals that are in progress at the time. Before Obama bailed Iran out, its economy was circling the drain, so if the Iranians decide Trump is serious enough about renegotiating the agreement, they will renegotiate.

No, that's not how it works. The "snap back" can only occur with a Security Council vote, and only if Iran violates the deal.

 

[Doc1]

When you engaged, you engaged on what I was talking about.
Good, I'm glad you agree finally.
The agreement means nothing at all.
It is non-binding.
Whether anyone else reinstitutes the sanctions should have no bearing on anything we do.

The US reinstating sanctions alone will do more harm to American businesses than it will to Iran.

That's the part you're missing.

But that doesn't mean he won't do it, and I have no idea what he will or won't do. As for hurting our business, not an issue for me. They are a rogue Nation and need to be dealt with. In my little world integrity "trumps" (no pun intended) commerce.

"Integrity" doesn't mean anything in relation to international relations.

Only to those who never had it in the first place. It isn't subjective, and it isn't something one turns off and on depending on the dictates in any given situation.

No, you're not still not getting it.

What you think is morally right is meaningless.

The US reinstating sanctions against Iran by themselves would be meaningless in terms of "integrity", and would result in hurting the US more than it would hurt Iran.

It's equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot, and somehow hoping it'll hurt someone else.

Nope, sorry. I understand the validity of the point your are trying make, but I'll never see it that way. Integrity is objective, and not subject to the approval or disapproval of others.

 

[toomuchtime_]

President Hassan Rouhani said Tuesday there was no chance of Iran renegotiating the nuclear deal with world powers if US President-elect Donald Trump demands it.

"The nuclear deal is finished, it has been approved by the UN Security Council and has become an international document. It is a multilateral accord and there is no sense in renegotiating it," said Rouhani at a news conference a year on from the deal coming into force.

Trump frequently criticised the nuclear deal during campaigning and called for fresh negotiations, but has refused to be drawn on his plans since being elected.

His nominee for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has called for a "full review" of the deal.

"Mr Trump, the president-elect, has made various statements that the nuclear deal does not satisfy him, that it was not a good deal or even that it was the worst deal ever," said Rouhani.

"These are mostly slogans, and I don't think that when he enters the White House, something will happen. It is not a bilateral deal that he can decide he likes or doesn't like," the president added.

The deal was signed between Iran, the US, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.

EU and British officials have this week said they would not support any renegotiation of the deal, which places strict curbs on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for a lifting of international sanctions.

The agreement contains a provision that if anyone of the parties decides to end it, it will end, so no agreement with the Europeans is necessary. If the US says it is over, it is over and the sanctions are immediately reinstated with exceptions made for deals that are in progress at the time. Before Obama bailed Iran out, its economy was circling the drain, so if the Iranians decide Trump is serious enough about renegotiating the agreement, they will renegotiate.

No, that's not how it works. The "snap back" can only occur with a Security Council vote, and only if Iran violates the deal.

No, this is how it works:

"Under the UNSCR, if a JCPOA participant state believes that Iran has not performed its commitments, it can bring the issue before the Security Council and require Iran to resolve the matter. If the alleging state declares itself unsatisfied with the Iranian response, the Security Council will then vote on a draft resolution — ostensibly governed by typical Security Council voting procedures — to continue the termination/suspension of U.N. sanctions. If a country vetoes that resolution, as might happen if the alleging state happened to be a veto-player like the United States, the U.N. sanctions will be reinstated. This means that the United States by itself, even without IAEA concurrence, can trigger the re-establishment of the legal basis for sanctions on Iran if it believes Iran has cheated on the agreement. But snapping back sanctions like this would come at a great cost: Iran has declared that doing so absolves it of all its obligations in the agreement, and the UNSCR does not rebut Iran’s understanding. So the sanctions mechanism does have some snap to it, though one with a potent poison pill.

What this means is that if the next president happens to be someone who has pledged during the campaign to abrogate this agreement on day one, the UNSCR provides a clear pathway for doing so: 1) Allege in the United Nations Security Council that Iran is cheating, thus setting in motion a re-imposition of sanctions; 2) declare the United States is unsatisfied with Iran’s response; 3) veto the automatic UNSCR proposing that sanctions continue to be terminated/suspended; 4) after the 30-day period, watch the legal basis for sanctions get re-instated as all previous UNSCRs that were terminated are re-applied; 5) watch Iran leave the deal; at which point 6) the deal is dead."

Do the Iran Deal’s ‘Snapback’ Sanctions Have Teeth?

 

[bendog]

President Hassan Rouhani said Tuesday there was no chance of Iran renegotiating the nuclear deal with world powers if US President-elect Donald Trump demands it.

"The nuclear deal is finished, it has been approved by the UN Security Council and has become an international document. It is a multilateral accord and there is no sense in renegotiating it," said Rouhani at a news conference a year on from the deal coming into force.

Trump frequently criticised the nuclear deal during campaigning and called for fresh negotiations, but has refused to be drawn on his plans since being elected.

His nominee for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has called for a "full review" of the deal.

"Mr Trump, the president-elect, has made various statements that the nuclear deal does not satisfy him, that it was not a good deal or even that it was the worst deal ever," said Rouhani.

"These are mostly slogans, and I don't think that when he enters the White House, something will happen. It is not a bilateral deal that he can decide he likes or doesn't like," the president added.

The deal was signed between Iran, the US, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.

EU and British officials have this week said they would not support any renegotiation of the deal, which places strict curbs on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for a lifting of international sanctions.

Since the EU and china don't want to change anything, it's sort of a done deal ... regardless of what Britain or Russia think they can get

 

[toomuchtime_]

President Hassan Rouhani said Tuesday there was no chance of Iran renegotiating the nuclear deal with world powers if US President-elect Donald Trump demands it.

"The nuclear deal is finished, it has been approved by the UN Security Council and has become an international document. It is a multilateral accord and there is no sense in renegotiating it," said Rouhani at a news conference a year on from the deal coming into force.

Trump frequently criticised the nuclear deal during campaigning and called for fresh negotiations, but has refused to be drawn on his plans since being elected.

His nominee for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has called for a "full review" of the deal.

"Mr Trump, the president-elect, has made various statements that the nuclear deal does not satisfy him, that it was not a good deal or even that it was the worst deal ever," said Rouhani.

"These are mostly slogans, and I don't think that when he enters the White House, something will happen. It is not a bilateral deal that he can decide he likes or doesn't like," the president added.

The deal was signed between Iran, the US, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.

EU and British officials have this week said they would not support any renegotiation of the deal, which places strict curbs on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for a lifting of international sanctions.

Since the EU and china don't want to change anything, it's sort of a done deal ... regardless of what Britain or Russia think they can get

Under the terms of the agreement, if any one member wants to cancel the deal it is canceled.

 

[dani67]

Lots of bullshit has been "reported". It's not our problem that you believed it.

The UK reported its own team pulled out, dumbass. Pull your head out of your partisan ass and educate yourself.

The 'deal' has already caused harm.

Lol to who!?

So you don't think they are using that money for terrorist activities?

what terrorist activity ?

hezbollah ? hezbollah fighting against isis and al qaede in syria now

 

[owebo]

President Hassan Rouhani said Tuesday there was no chance of Iran renegotiating the nuclear deal with world powers if US President-elect Donald Trump demands it.

"The nuclear deal is finished, it has been approved by the UN Security Council and has become an international document. It is a multilateral accord and there is no sense in renegotiating it," said Rouhani at a news conference a year on from the deal coming into force.

Trump frequently criticised the nuclear deal during campaigning and called for fresh negotiations, but has refused to be drawn on his plans since being elected.

His nominee for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has called for a "full review" of the deal.

"Mr Trump, the president-elect, has made various statements that the nuclear deal does not satisfy him, that it was not a good deal or even that it was the worst deal ever," said Rouhani.

"These are mostly slogans, and I don't think that when he enters the White House, something will happen. It is not a bilateral deal that he can decide he likes or doesn't like," the president added.

The deal was signed between Iran, the US, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.

EU and British officials have this week said they would not support any renegotiation of the deal, which places strict curbs on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for a lifting of international sanctions.

Good...just throw it away then....

 

[easyt65]

Lots of bullshit has been "reported". It's not our problem that you believed it.

The UK reported its own team pulled out, dumbass. Pull your head out of your partisan ass and educate yourself.

The 'deal' has already caused harm.

Lol to who!?

So you don't think they are using that money for terrorist activities?

what terrorist activity ?

hezbollah ? hezbollah fighting against isis and al qaede in syria now

Iran is one of the leading exporters of terrorism in the world. Their special operations teams are in every Middle Eastern country trying to intimidate and/or destabilize the countries.

 

[theHawk]

It is non-binding kids.
A) It was an Executive Action
B) Iran never signed it

C) Congress never approved it.


And no, a Senate Dems filibuster of a disapproval resolution does not equate to an approval of Congress.