Obama And Kerry Do Their Happy Dance…



Israel hung out to dry.

Quote: Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.

The talks between Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — the five permanent members of the Security Council — plus Germany and Iran, are taking place ahead of difficult negotiations that resume next week over constricting Iran’s nuclear ability.

Some eight U.N. resolutions – four of them imposing sanctions – ban Iran from uranium enrichment and other sensitive atomic work and bar it from buying and selling atomic technology and anything linked to ballistic missiles. There is also a U.N. arms embargo.

Iran sees their removal as crucial as U.N. measures are a legal basis for more stringent U.S. and European Union measures to be enforced. The U.S. and EU often cite violations of the U.N. ban on enrichment and other sensitive nuclear work as justification for imposing additional penalties on Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress on Wednesday that an Iran nuclear deal would not be legally binding, meaning future U.S. presidents could decide not to implement it. That point was emphasized in an open letter by 47 Republican senators sent on Monday to Iran’s leaders asserting any deal could be discarded once President Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017.

But a Security Council resolution on a nuclear deal with Iran could be legally binding, say Western diplomatic officials. That could complicate and possibly undercut future attempts by Republicans in Washington to unravel an agreement.

Iran and the six powers are aiming to complete the framework of a nuclear deal by the end of March, and achieve a full agreement by June 30, to curb Iran’s most sensitive nuclear activities for at least 10 years in exchange for a gradual end to all sanctions on the Islamic Republic.[…]

A senior U.S. administration official confirmed that the discussions were underway.

The official said that the Security Council had mandated the negotiations over the U.N. sanctions and therefore has to be involved. The core role in negotiations with Iran that was being played by the five permanent members meant that any understanding over U.N. sanctions would likely get endorsed by the full council, the official added.

Iran rejects Western allegations it is seeking a nuclear weapons capability.

Officials said a U.N. resolution could help protect any nuclear deal against attempts by Republicans in U.S. Congress to sabotage it. Since violation of U.N. demands that Iran halt enrichment provide a legal basis for sanctioning Tehran, a new resolution could make new sanction moves difficult.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/1...IS20150312

If six nations are going to be involved, it's going to be very hard to argue that it's simply an agreement and not a treaty. And that means it needs to be ratified by the senate.

He's what I'd like someone to explain. It seems unlikely that we are going to get any rights, privileges, or powers out of a non-treaty agreement that we don't have without it. I can't even imagine what such a power might be. We are almost assuredly going to give up contractually the rights to do certain things that we would otherwise be able to do absent such agreement. In return Iran presumably will give up certain rights that it might otherwise have under international law. But will Iran abide by the agreement? It's hard enough to see a favorable benefits to costs ratio if the do abide, impossible if they don't. So what do we gain from such an agreement?

(03-12-2015 11:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If six nations are going to be involved, it's going to be very hard to argue that it's simply an agreement and not a treaty. And that means it needs to be ratified by the senate.

He's what I'd like someone to explain. It seems unlikely that we are going to get any rights, privileges, or powers out of a non-treaty agreement that we don't have without it. I can't even imagine what such a power might be. We are almost assuredly going to give up contractually the rights to do certain things that we would otherwise be able to do absent such agreement. In return Iran presumably will give up certain rights that it might otherwise have under international law. But will Iran abide by the agreement? It's hard enough to see a favorable benefits to costs ratio if the do abide, impossible if they don't. So what do we gain from such an agreement?

A thumb in the Eye to the Senate By Obama for His "Extreme Personal Pleasure" while "Rome Burns" in the Background.

(03-12-2015 11:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If six nations are going to be involved, it's going to be very hard to argue that it's simply an agreement and not a treaty. And that means it needs to be ratified by the senate.

He's what I'd like someone to explain. It seems unlikely that we are going to get any rights, privileges, or powers out of a non-treaty agreement that we don't have without it. I can't even imagine what such a power might be. We are almost assuredly going to give up contractually the rights to do certain things that we would otherwise be able to do absent such agreement. In return Iran presumably will give up certain rights that it might otherwise have under international law. But will Iran abide by the agreement? It's hard enough to see a favorable benefits to costs ratio if the do abide, impossible if they don't. So what do we gain from such an agreement?

We'd have to be able to verify that they're abiding by the agreement. That has to be the difficult part, as I just can't see Iran agreeing to what we would consider necessary in that regard. We'd be giving up sanctions, at least gradually, we know that much. I don't think we have enough details.

(03-13-2015 04:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 11:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If six nations are going to be involved, it's going to be very hard to argue that it's simply an agreement and not a treaty. And that means it needs to be ratified by the senate.
He's what I'd like someone to explain. It seems unlikely that we are going to get any rights, privileges, or powers out of a non-treaty agreement that we don't have without it. I can't even imagine what such a power might be. We are almost assuredly going to give up contractually the rights to do certain things that we would otherwise be able to do absent such agreement. In return Iran presumably will give up certain rights that it might otherwise have under international law. But will Iran abide by the agreement? It's hard enough to see a favorable benefits to costs ratio if the do abide, impossible if they don't. So what do we gain from such an agreement?

We'd have to be able to verify that they're abiding by the agreement. That has to be the difficult part, as I just can't see Iran agreeing to what we would consider necessary in that regard. We'd be giving up sanctions, at least gradually, we know that much. I don't think we have enough details.

I don't think so either, and that's why I don't understand all these comments about how this agreement is our best chance for keeping Iran from going nuke or about how "sabotaging" the agreement is hurting America.

I don't think we'll get an agreement that will be good for us, others on here think we will. But none of us knows. So we should be cautious until we do know.

Even if you lift the Financial Sanctions on Iran their economy can't run on $45.00 Oil. The Saudis have hurt the Iranians worse than the Sanctions.