Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
...
“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.
The incompetence in this administration is mind blowing. Add to that the corruption and it's easy to see why so many Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction.
The incompetence in this administration is mind blowing. Add to that the corruption and it's easy to see why so many Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Well for a supposed non-binding agreement we still did pretty well since they have abided by the terms to this point, so what's the issue.
It's not a treaty and they never claimed that it was, it's an agreement and if Iran reneges then the sanctions relative to nuclear arms go back into effect. What does legally binding mean anyway, did Pompeo want a means of taking them to civil court
Well for a supposed non-binding agreement we still did pretty well since they have abided by the terms to this point, so what's the issue.
It's not a treaty and they never claimed that it was, it's an agreement and if Iran reneges then the sanctions relative to nuclear arms go back into effect. What does legally binding mean anyway, did Pompeo want a means of taking them to civil court
Iran sanctions - so they can receive hundreds of billions of dollars - were lifted for an unsigned treaty.
So while Kerry was "negotiating" with them and the crowds were chanting "Death to America" outside on the streets the leaders simply said no to the terms and Kerry said "Ok no problem" ?
Imagine that Trump is right when he says it is the worse deal ever.
Didn't Obama ever hear that Beatles song "Can't buy me Love" is he trying to buy the love of iran?
Iran sanctions - so they can receive hundreds of billions of dollars - were lifted for an unsigned treaty.
Once again it is not a treaty, that is why congress didn't vote on the agreement. The funding had nothing to do with the removal of nuclear material and their compliance, you are confused.
The bottom line is they have been in compliance with the agreement signed last year, why are you brining up the terms now, Pompeo's letter was from Nov 2015.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
