Trump screwed Up Iran Big Time. And now Iran will get a Nuke.

[Rigby5]

Its a signed document

Not according to the Kerry State Department who negotiated the deal.

A signed treaty becomes US law and is legally binding.
It is something that is difficult to get out of.
A signed document like this is not a treaty, so then is not US law, and is not legally binding.
It is followed by both sides at their own discretion.
But anyone saying it was not signed, used the wrong words.
It definitely was signed, but it is simply the case the signatures do not really mean anything.

 

[Independent thinker]

The Obama Iran deal stopped Iran's uranium enrichment and nuke program. Iran was about to get a nuke and Obama stopped it.

Trump stupidly canceled the Iran deal. A deal that was working, and preventing Iran from making a nuke. Everybody in the world was in agreement that Iran was in compliance.

Iran then started enriching uranium big time and is now about to make a nuke. All because of Trump and his failure.

If Trump never canceled the Iran deal, then Iran would not be close to making a nuke. Trumpers claim Iran violated the deal, but they are lying per usual. There is no evidence at all Iran violated anything at all. Just like there is no evidence of voter fraud at all.

Trump did nothing to stop Iran from enriching uranium, which re-started under his presidency, leading to the situation we have now.

George Bush did the same thing with N Korea, and they made a nuke because of Bush's failures. Trump has pulled another Bush, and now Iran will make a nuke because of Trump. Trump and Bush, the 2 worst most failed presidents in US History.

Iran accelerates enrichment of uranium to near weapons-grade, IAEA says

Iran has accelerated its enrichment of uranium to near weapons-grade, the U.N. atomic watchdog said in a report on Tuesday seen by Reuters, a move raising tensions with the West as both sides seek to resume talks on reviving Tehran's nuclear deal.

www.reuters.com

What the hell are you talking about? The Iran deal allowed Iran to make ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads and had a sunset clause, allowing Iran to make their own nukes. Iran was going to get their own nukes under the Iran Deal.

 

[Nostra]

A signed treaty becomes US law and is legally binding.
It is something that is difficult to get out of.
A signed document like this is not a treaty, so then is not US law, and is not legally binding.
It is followed by both sides at their own discretion.
But anyone saying it was not signed, used the wrong words.
It definitely was signed, but it is simply the case the signatures do not really mean anything.

John Kerry's own State Department said it wasn't signed.

 

[Rigby5]

What the hell are you talking about? The Iran deal allowed Iran to make ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads and had a sunset clause, allowing Iran to make their own nukes. Iran was going to get their own nukes under the Iran Deal.

Wrong.

Iran already had plenty of missiles capable of carrying nukes.
They are increasing their range, but that is pretty irrelevant actually.

And Iran was going to give up most of their enriched fissile material, so then would have been further from getting nukes under the deal.
The sunset clause did not mean Iran would have gotten nukes anyway, as it could then have been renegotiated again, again delaying them from getting nukes.
Delaying anyone is the best anyone can ever do.
Anyone can and will get nukes if they spend enough time doing it.
The best you can ever do is get them to temporarily halt production.

 

[Rigby5]

John Kerry's own State Department said it wasn't signed.

The Kerry State Dept. then was wrong.
It was not just signed by the US and Iran, but a half dozen countries.

What they meant to say was that it was not a binding treaty but just a gentleman's agreement.
There was no recourse to courts if one thought there was a violation.
It was not legally binding, like treaties normally are.
That is because there is no legal way to prevent any country from developing nukes.
So getting Iran to voluntarily agree to halt development is the most anyone could have done.

 

[Nostra]

The Kerry State Dept. then was wrong.
It was not just signed by the US and Iran, but a half dozen countries.

What they meant to say was that it was not a binding treaty but just a gentleman's agreement.
There was no recourse to courts if one thought there was a violation.
It was not legally binding, like treaties normally are.
That is because there is no legal way to prevent any country from developing nukes.
So getting Iran to voluntarily agree to halt development is the most anyone could have done.

So the guy who negotiated the deal is wrong, and you are right.

Got it.

 

[easyt65]

The Kerry State Dept. then was wrong.
It was not just signed by the US and Iran, but a half dozen countries.

What they meant to say was that it was not a binding treaty but just a gentleman's agreement.
There was no recourse to courts if one thought there was a violation.
It was not legally binding, like treaties normally are.
That is because there is no legal way to prevent any country from developing nukes.
So getting Iran to voluntarily agree to halt development is the most anyone could have done.

Earlier I posted several links and articles that told how Iran NEVER signed the deal that Obama helped negotiate. Iran made modifications to the original illegal 'treaty'. Congress never ratified the illegal 'treaty'. The articles also pointed out how Barry's 'legacy' was completely NON-binding.

 

[Independent thinker]

Wrong.

Iran already had plenty of missiles capable of carrying nukes.
They are increasing their range, but that is pretty irrelevant actually.

And Iran was going to give up most of their enriched fissile material, so then would have been further from getting nukes under the deal.
The sunset clause did not mean Iran would have gotten nukes anyway, as it could then have been renegotiated again, again delaying them from getting nukes.
Delaying anyone is the best anyone can ever do.
Anyone can and will get nukes if they spend enough time doing it.
The best you can ever do is get them to temporarily halt production.

It would not have been renegotiated. Iran signed a deal with a sunset clause so they could make nukes unfettered once the sunset clause took effect. They successfully played Obama and the world on that. The only thing that would have changed their minds on that is if the world paid their blackmail price, the very same strategy NK is always doing.

 

[Rigby5]

So the guy who negotiated the deal is wrong, and you are right.

Got it.

I read all the articles, and they all said who many countries signed on to the deal.
Obviously what you are referring to was an attempt by someone to use terminology to contrast this deal with a treaty.
But the articles in the paper all said it was signed, so most likely it is your state department source who is using the wrong terminology.

Are you trying to say there never was any agreement at all?
Are you saying Iran did not give up most of their stockpiles and stop producing more?
Why would they have done that unless there was a signed deal?

 

[Rigby5]

Earlier I posted several links and articles that told how Iran NEVER signed the deal that Obama helped negotiate. Iran made modifications to the original illegal 'treaty'. Congress never ratified the illegal 'treaty'. The articles also pointed out how Barry's 'legacy' was completely NON-binding.

So what that it is not a treaty and is non-binding?
The IAEA still was allowed to place all the seals, cameras, etc., so then we could tell if there was compliance or not.
The ability to take them to the World Court seems to hardly be of any concern.

 

[Rigby5]

It would not have been renegotiated. Iran signed a deal with a sunset clause so they could make nukes unfettered once the sunset clause took effect. They successfully played Obama and the world on that. The only thing that would have changed their minds on that is if the world paid their blackmail price, the very same strategy NK is always doing.

So what?
If not for the Obama deal, then Iran could have had nukes much faster.

And there was no "blackmail price".
We paid them NOTHING.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

These partisan idiots only repeat ad nauseam what the Obama Administration itself said, that the JCPOA was not a binding “formal treaty” but a political agreement. Why? Because they don’t really want to admit that they opposed all conceivable political agreements with Iran and other major powers, as none would win Israeli support. They cannot honestly defend the results of Trump “tearing up” that very agreement, which has led to the present situation…

We are now living with:

1) a much more hostile Iranian government further advanced in its nuclear enrichment activities and more capable of building a bomb should it desire to do so

2) the defeat of all the reformers in Iran who were willing to negotiate with us, reformers who could (as in the past) serve as a possible rallying point for future radical mass struggles against the hardliners

3) a more strongly unified and determined Iranian theocracy / political dictatorship

4) an Iran now trading and oriented more to the East & China and less to Western Europe

Internationally, the results are that the U.S. is now seen:

1) by allies as an unstable country, which not only can not be relied on to keep negotiated international agreements, but which may even SANCTION ALLIES for supporting previous U.S. negotiated agreements

2) by great power competitors and opponents as an unstable country which disrespects their views, unilaterally tears up international agreements; as a result they are more hostile and willing to use force in international relations.

 

[Rigby5]

These partisan idiots only repeat ad nauseam what the Obama Administration itself said, that the JCPOA was not a binding “formal treaty” but a political agreement. Why? Because they don’t really want to admit that they opposed that agreement with Iran. That they cannot honestly defend the results of Trump “tearing up” that very agreement has led to…

We are now living with:

1) a much more hostile Iranian government further advanced in its nuclear enrichment activities and more capable of building a bomb should it desire to do so

2) the defeat of all the reformers in Iran who were willing to negotiate with us, reformers who could (as in the past) serve as a possible rallying point for future radical mass struggles against the hardliners

3) a more strongly unified and determined Iranian theocracy / political dictatorship

4) an Iran now trading and oriented more to the East & China and less to Western Europe

Internationally, the results are that the U.S. is now seen:

1) by allies as an unstable country, which not only can not be relied on to keep negotiated international agreements, but which may even SANCTION ALLIES for supporting previous U.S. negotiated agreements

2) by great power competitors and opponents as an unstable country which disrespects their views, unilaterally tears up international agreements; as a result they are more hostile and willing to use force in international relations.

I agree that when Trump ended the nuclear agreement with Iran, it made things much worse and gained nothing.
The agreement was good and should have been continued.

 

[BluesLegend]

Yeah man why did Trump airlift pallets of CASH to Iran? Oh wait, that was Obama and Biden.

 

[Nostra]

I read all the articles, and they all said who many countries signed on to the deal.
Obviously what you are referring to was an attempt by someone to use terminology to contrast this deal with a treaty.
But the articles in the paper all said it was signed, so most likely it is your state department source who is using the wrong terminology.

Are you trying to say there never was any agreement at all?
Are you saying Iran did not give up most of their stockpiles and stop producing more?
Why would they have done that unless there was a signed deal?

Feel free to go with your leftist "articles" saying it was signed.

I'll go with the official response of the John Kerry State Department to a letter from a Congressman asking if it is a signed document.

And BTW, what law says the SOS can sign anything binding the USA to anything?

 

[Rigby5]

Feel free to go with your leftist "articles" saying it was signed.

I'll go with the official response of the John Kerry State Department to a letter from a Congressman asking if it is a signed document.

And BTW, what law says the SOS can sign anything binding the USA to anything?

I have never heard of anyone saying agreement was not reached and signed.
This is just wiki, but it would seem to be a general consensus.

{...
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA; Persian: برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک‎, romanized: barnāmeye jāme'e eqdāme moshtarak (برجام, BARJAM)),[4][5] known commonly as the Iran nuclear deal or Iran deal, is an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015, between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany)[a] together with the European Union.

Formal negotiations toward JCPOA began with the adoption of the Joint Plan of Action, an interim agreement signed between Iran and the P5+1 countries in November 2013. Iran and the P5+1 countries engaged in negotiations for the next 20 months and, in April 2015, agreed on a framework for the final agreement. In July 2015, Iran and the P5+1 confirmed agreement on the plan, along with the "Roadmap Agreement" between Iran and the IAEA.[8]
...}

 

[Nostra]

I have never heard of anyone saying agreement was not reached and signed.
This is just wiki, but it would seem to be a general consensus.

{...
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA; Persian: برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک‎, romanized: barnāmeye jāme'e eqdāme moshtarak (برجام, BARJAM)),[4][5] known commonly as the Iran nuclear deal or Iran deal, is an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015, between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany)[a] together with the European Union.

Formal negotiations toward JCPOA began with the adoption of the Joint Plan of Action, an interim agreement signed between Iran and the P5+1 countries in November 2013. Iran and the P5+1 countries engaged in negotiations for the next 20 months and, in April 2015, agreed on a framework for the final agreement. In July 2015, Iran and the P5+1 confirmed agreement on the plan, along with the "Roadmap Agreement" between Iran and the IAEA.[8]
...}

I have never heard of anyone saying agreement was not reached and signed.

I have posted links to documents from John Kerry's State Department confirming it wasn't signed, Dumbass.

I have no clue why you continue to deny the obvious reality.

 

[Rigby5]

Should we believe some clown who posted a pic on Wiki, or John Kerry's own State Department?


Hmmmmmmm.....

State Department Affirms That Iran Deal Is Only a Political Commitment​

In a letter recently released by Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS), the State Department emphasized that the Iran deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – is not binding under international law. The letter was in response to Pompeo’s inquiry about why the JCPOA transmitted to Congress lacked signatures. The State Department said, in part:


This is not a new development, though it is interesting to see the administration assert it so explicitly. Both Jack Goldsmith and John Bellinger (among others) made this clear when the deal was announced this summer. Jack noted that the deal was not a pure executive agreement but merely a political agreement, which “do[es] not create legally binding obligations, even if [it has] normative force in the political (or moral) context.” And, as John argued, while the UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) that implemented some of the terms of the JCPOA is binding under international law, the JCPOA itself is not. Nor does the UNSCR require the U.S. to lift domestic sanctions.

While this issue is not new, it has received some heightened scrutiny in the wake of multiple Republican presidential candidates vowing to repudiate the deal if elected. Marco Rubio, for example, said this very thing in September.

There are two related issues here. First, as noted above, as a political agreement the JCPOA is not binding under international law. The second issue is whether the commitments made in the JCPOA are binding under domestic law. An article in the Atlantic flatly asserted Rubio was wrong, equating the Iran deal to congressionally authorized executive agreements such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, NAFTA, and World Trade Organization.

But the JCPOA is not such an agreement, as the State Department’s letter makes clear. It is only a political commitment.

State Department Affirms That Iran Deal Is Only a Political Commitment

In a letter recently released by Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS), the State Department emphasized that the Iran deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – is not binding under international law. The letter was in response to Pompeo’s inquiry about why the JCPOA transmitted to...

www.lawfareblog.com

Now I understand the confusion.
Of course the JPCOA involved the signatures of:

China

France

Germany

Iran

Russia

United Kingdom

United States (withdrawn)[3]

European Union
But was just a voluntary commitment, not a legally binding treaty.
All the countries signed the agreement, but the copy transmitted to Congress was without signatures, because they were unnecessary.
Only treaties require the signatures to be sent to congress with the agreement.

 

[Independent thinker]

So what?
If not for the Obama deal, then Iran could have had nukes much faster.

And there was no "blackmail price".
We paid them NOTHING.

LOL. Obama personally delivered billions of dollars in cash to Iran! Brought the bundle right to them. The world would have had to pay yet another ransom to extend the sunset clause, and then another ransom and another ransom - the very same tricks that North Korea has always played. At least you now admit that the Iran deal did absolutely nothing to stop Iran from making nukes after the sunset clause expired, but for paying continued ransoms.

 

[Nostra]

Now I understand the confusion.
Of course the JPCOA involved the signatures of:

China

France

Germany

Iran

Russia

United Kingdom

United States (withdrawn)[3]

European Union
But was just a voluntary commitment, not a legally binding treaty.
All the countries signed the agreement, but the copy transmitted to Congress was without signatures, because they were unnecessary.
Only treaties require the signatures to be sent to congress with the agreement.

More Wiki links that mean nothing.