US Secretary of State Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif Vienna June 30, 2015
News came from Vienna this morning that a final deal has been reached between the P5+1 and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Jerusalem Post reported:
World powers have reached a final, comprehensive agreement with Iran that will govern its nuclear program for over a decade, diplomats said on Tuesday morning.
The deal culminates a two-year diplomatic effort in which the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, led by the United States, have sought to end a twelve-year crisis over Iran's suspicious nuclear work.
Formally known as the the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 100-page document amounts to the most significant multilateral agreement reached in several decades. Its final form is roundly opposed in Israel by the government, by its opposition, and by the public at large.
The JCPOA allows Iran to retain much of its nuclear infrastructure, and grants it the right to enrich uranium on its own soil. But the deal also requires Iran to cap and partially roll back that infrastructure for ten to fifteen years, and grants the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, managed access to monitor that program with intrusive inspections.
In exchange, the governments of Britain, France, Russia, China, the US and Germany have agreed to lift all UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic, once Iran abides by a set of nuclear-related commitments.
The United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will be tasked with enforcing the agreement over its lifetime. The UN Security Council will soon vote on a resolution to codify the deal.
So, too, will the United States Congress. The US legislature now has a 60-day period to review the deal and, should its leadership choose, vote on a resolution approving or disapproving of the deal. A vote of disapproval would be subject to a presidential veto, which Congress may then vote to override.
Israel and its Arab neighbors are united in opposition to the agreement, warning it will legitimize Iran as a nuclear-threshold state in the short-term, and embolden its form of government - a theocratic republic - in the long-term.
The deal seeks to verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and to keep Tehran at least one year away from having the capability to build such a weapon.
The JCPOA will not be "signed." Negotiators in Vienna have agreed to "adopt" the text, and will spend several months preparing to implement various provisions of the highly technical agreement.
With this announcement from Vienna the unraveling of this dangerous legacy of President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry will ensue with triggering of the 60 day review by Congress under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. As if orchestrated on cue in this duplicitous act of appeasement, President Obama will go to Capitol Hill to make the case to Democratic members that this agreement is a Hobson's Choice, the least bad deal ,under the circumstances with Iran. For the Republican Congressional majotities in both houses it will present a daunting task to enlist a minority of wary Democratic colleagus to join with them to reject the Joint Plan of Action attempting to make it veto proof. Allies in the Middle East Israel, Saudi Arabia the Gulf Emirates and Egypt oppose the agreement as it facilitates Iran becoming a nuclear threshold state supporter of terrorism equipped with ICBMs. It will trigger proliferation and possible eventual military action against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Reliance on less than intrusive UN inspections of military sites and both known and unknown sites will assure Iran's becoming a nuclear threshold power. Obama will leave behind a literal Stygian Stable of difficulties for his successor to enforce compliance by Iran with questionable snap back sanctions subject to a committee including Iran. Israel will be left virtually alone to its own means to combat a nuclear equipped apocalyptic Islamo fascist Iran.
Robert Sklaroff, M.D.
I advocated for Congress to sue BHO - claiming that the deal exceeds the parameters of the recent law - triggering a constitutional crisis over executive power; it was published in "The American Thinker" two months ago. The argument would be based on the claim that any non-nuke component would violate Congressional intent and require 2/3 Senatorial vote as a treaty; achieving a stay would allow for the SCOTUS to rule on this issue...next year.
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
This is the hyperlink to my piece... http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/05/on_iran_sanctions_no_bill_is_better_than_a_bad_bill.html ...and this is the key 'graph therefrom... "Concern that a constitutional crisis looms abounds, for any clash of powers of allegedly co-equal branches may ultimately reach the SCOTUS in a fashion comparable to the current litigation promulgated by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) against unilateral Obamacare rule changes by the administration."
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
Page 11 of the text of the document… http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeednews/iran-nuclear-talks#.kh76B8BWzD …states inter-alia that a set of U.N.S.C Resolutions would be terminated. This includes Resolution 1929 (2010) which states [¶ 8] that “all States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Iran, from or through their territories or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or related materiel, including spare parts, or items as determined by the Security Council or the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737 (2006) (“the Committee”), decides further that all States shall prevent the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms and related materiel, and, in this context, calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint over the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture and use of all other arms and related materiel.” Thus, CONVENTIONAL arms are to be addressed, clearly not captured in the legislative-intent of the bill that was passed two months ago [related to Iranian Nukes]. Indeed, whenever other issues [such as the release of prisoners] were raised, the BHO-Administration maintained that the entire focus was on Nukes. [to be continued]
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
Note this excerpt from the bill… https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/615/text …with the initial part having been STRUCK… “(2) QUALIFYING LEGISLATION DEFINED.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘qualifying legislation’ means only a bill of either House of Congress— “(A) the title of which is as follows: ‘A bill reinstating statutory sanctions imposed with respect to Iran.’; and “(B) the matter after the enacting clause of which is: ‘Any statutory sanctions imposed with respect to Iran pursuant to ______ that were waived, suspended, reduced, or otherwise relieved pursuant to an agreement submitted pursuant to section 135(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 are hereby reinstated and any action by the United States Government to facilitate the release of funds or assets to Iran pursuant to such agreement, or provide any further waiver, suspension, reduction, or other relief is hereby prohibited.’, with the blank space being filled in with the law or laws under which sanctions are to be reinstated. “(i) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: “(1) AGREEMENT AND ALL RELATED MATERIALS AND ANNEXES.—The term ‘agreement and all related materials and annexes’ means the agreement itself and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.” …and the ultimately adopted lingo having been somewhat more expansive… “(2) QUALIFYING LEGISLATION DEFINED.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘qualifying legislation’ means only a bill of either House of Congress— “(A) the title of which is as follows: ‘A bill reinstating statutory sanctions imposed with respect to Iran.’; and “(B) the matter after the enacting clause of which is: ‘Any statutory sanctions imposed with respect to Iran pursuant to ______ that were waived, suspended, reduced, or otherwise relieved pursuant to an agreement submitted pursuant to section 135(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 are hereby reinstated and any action by the United States Government to facilitate the release of funds or assets to Iran pursuant to such agreement, or provide any further waiver, suspension, reduction, or other relief pursuant to such agreement is hereby prohibited.’, with the blank space being filled in with the law or laws under which sanctions are to be reinstated. “(h) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: “(1) AGREEMENT.—The term ‘agreement’ means an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran that includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.”
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
THEREFORE, although the “definition” is all-encompassing, arguendo, lifting of non-conventional sanctions was not envisioned and, thus, should be enjoined.
Ted Cruz may be the man to bring it forward. I don't see how it could hurt his campaign - it would bring him publicity and allow him to place himself alongside Lindsey Graham pushing to stop it.
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
I have remitted a copy to Sen. Cruz's office and it was positively received.
Fingers crossed. Lindsey Graham was all over the news this morning - "my issue, my issue, my issue!" Cruz needs to do something to establish himself on foreign policy. This might be it.