Obama didn’t tell us all the details about his Nuclear Deal with Iran.
Many Democrats criticized President Trump for his decision to pull out of the flawed Iran deal on Tuesday. His allies in the media and some Republicans who where opposed to the deal back in 2015 and voted against it were not happy with Trump. Even the majority of the Senate opposed the Nuclear Deal in 2015.
However, under the rules of the Senate, Republicans required 60 votes to continue with the resolution opposing the agreement and didn’t get it. They fell short. So why are things suddenly changing now…
Reported by 100percentfedup:
They fell short as 42 Democrats voted to block consideration of the resolution.
The House voted against the deal by a 269-to-162 margin in September 2015. 25 Democrats opposed the deal.
So, why did our lawmakers vote on Obama’s flawed Iran deal, when it wasn’t even signed by Iranian officials?
On November 25, 2015, the National Review reported that 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.
English Alarabiya – “The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose — and ramp up — our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments,” Frifield wrote to Pompeo.
President Hassan Rowhani said Saturday he opposes a parliamentary vote on the landmark nuclear deal reached with world powers because terms of the agreement would turn into legal obligations if passed by lawmakers.
Rowhani told a news conference that the deal was a political understanding reached with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, not a pact requiring parliamentary approval. The deal also says Iran would implement the terms voluntarily, he said.
The historic deal calls for limiting Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions.
“If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. it will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,” Rowhani said. “Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”
Pompeo cited that comment in his letter to Kerry, but Frifield did not explicitly address it in her reply. “This is not a mere formality,” Pompeo wrote in his September 19 letter. “Those signatures represent the commitment of the signatory and the country on whose behalf he or she is signing. A signature also serves to make clear precisely who the parties to the agreement are and the authority under which that nation entered into the agreement. In short, just as with any legal instrument, signing matters.”
Here is the State Department letter to Mike Pompeo, that states: “If Iran breaks these commitments, we can snap back both unilateral and UN sanctions.”