• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kerry admits deal with Iran would not be 'legally binding'

Last edited:
... and if you don't get it, like FOX News doesn't.

The US is not negotiating a treaty, nor anything "legally binding" with Iran. In fact the US does not even have a diplomatic relationship with Iran. A treaty with a county we do not have a diplomatic relationship with would be very strange. Instead what the US is doing is helping broker an 'executive agreement' between the P5+1 countries -- Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- which is an agreement conducted only by the executive branch, represented by the State Branch under Secretary Kerry.

What's being discussed is not the brunt of the US' sanctions on Iran, with whom we've not traded with since the 80s, but the sanctions that P5+1 as a coalition is holding over Iran. What P5+1 as a coalition is demanding is that Iran enthusiastically adhere to its already agreed upon binding non-proliferation obligations, submit to further reviews by watchdog groups and a few other stipulations. In exchange Iran will receive temporary relief on the sanctions from the coalition as a whole. We don't know exactly what form of relief will be delivered, because that's what is being discussed, but it could be anything from member countries like Germany lifting trade restrictions, to unfreezing cash assets or something like the WTO or the World Bank offering backing or assistance to Iran.

The Iran deal is not a treaty, nor does it need to be "legally binding." That's because it's primarily a tit-for-tat deal. If Iran shows even the slightest bit of backtracking, the P5+1 coalition will be able to immediately pull back the relief. This is also why Tom Cotton is a moron. There's nothing the Senate will do to sign off on the deal. Not unless Cotton decides to (1) overthrow and assume the executive branch's role in diplomacy, (2) overthrow and assume leadership over Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, as well as NGOs like the WTO/World Bank, or (3) do something very illegal beyond staging a coup.

The reason that Obama is doing this is the longterm bet that if delay Iran long enough, eventually the moderates and reformers will come into power (e.g., the 2011 Green Revolution) or exert enough influence to void the hardliner's nuclear aspirations.
 
brothern said:
The reason that Obama is doing this is the longterm bet that if delay Iran long enough, eventually the moderates and reformers will come into power (e.g., the 2011 Green Revolution) or exert enough influence to void the hardliner's nuclear aspirations.
Click to expand...

:doh Then he's an idiot. They just selected the guy in charge of the Council of Experts who will oversee the selection of the next Supreme Leader. Hint: not a Green Revolutionary, who are mostly either in jail or at home nursing broken bones and the like. Giving Iran nuclear capability in hopes of enabling the Green Revolution types is like giving Putin Crimea in hopes of enabling Russian Homosexuals.
 
brothern said:
... and if you don't get it, like FOX News doesn't.

The US is not negotiating a treaty, nor anything "legally binding" with Iran. In fact the US does not even have a diplomatic relationship with Iran. A treaty with a county we do not have a diplomatic relationship with would be very strange. Instead what the US is doing is helping broker an 'executive agreement' between the P5+1 countries -- Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- which is an agreement conducted only by the executive branch, represented by the State Branch under Secretary Kerry.

What's being discussed is not the brunt of the US' sanctions on Iran, with whom we've not traded with since the 80s, but the sanctions that P5+1 as a coalition is holding over Iran. What P5+1 as a coalition is demanding is that Iran enthusiastically adhere to its already agreed upon binding non-proliferation obligations, submit to further reviews by watchdog groups and a few other stipulations. In exchange Iran will receive temporary relief on the sanctions from the coalition as a whole. We don't know exactly what form of relief will be delivered, because that's what is being discussed, but it could be anything from member countries like Germany lifting trade restrictions, to unfreezing cash assets or something like the WTO or the World Bank offering backing or assistance to Iran.

The Iran deal is not a treaty, nor does it need to be "legally binding." That's because it's primarily a tit-for-tat deal. If Iran shows even the slightest bit of backtracking, the P5+1 coalition will be able to immediately pull back the relief. This is also why Tom Cotton is a moron. There's nothing the Senate will do to sign off on the deal. Not unless Cotton decides to (1) overthrow and assume the executive branch's role in diplomacy, (2) overthrow and assume leadership over Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, as well as NGOs like the WTO/World Bank, or (3) do something very illegal beyond staging a coup.

The reason that Obama is doing this is the longterm bet that if delay Iran long enough, eventually the moderates and reformers will come into power (e.g., the 2011 Green Revolution) or exert enough influence to void the hardliner's nuclear aspirations.
Click to expand...

First I'd like to point out that the US is a part of the P5+1 Coalition. So any deals that are made will include a compromise from the US. And that will no doubt include trade.

Second I'd like to point out that Obama has stated before that when and if a deal is reached then he would bring it "before the American people". That is a clear indication that we're treading on Treaty territory. Otherwise there would be no need to "bring it before the American people" as Obama most certainly may enter into temporary agreements with other countries. I say temporary because the moment a new President steps in they can nullify any such "deal" with a simple EO. If Obama wants it to be permanent or have a guarantee that it will last beyond his term he will however need Congressional approval of the deal.

And lets face facts, no one knows who is going to be elected to be the next President. Yes, many people claim that their side will win. But that is, quite frankly, nothing but hot air. That should be evident in the fact that Bush got elected twice and Obama got elected twice. Despite both sides saying that the other side was definitely going to lose the election. It would be foolish and stupid for any President to negotiate a non-binding deal this close to the end of their two term Presidency. And I would hope that anyone with two brains cells to rub together in their head would recognize that particular fact. And IMO, Obama is a LOT of things. But stupid is not one of them.
 
cpwill said:
:doh Then he's an idiot. They just selected the guy in charge of the Council of Experts who will oversee the selection of the next Supreme Leader. Hint: not a Green Revolutionary, who are mostly either in jail or at home nursing broken bones and the like. Giving Iran nuclear capability in hopes of enabling the Green Revolution types is like giving Putin Crimea in hopes of enabling Russian Homosexuals.
Click to expand...

And remember, Obama was so supportive of the revolutionaries in Iran back during the Arab Spring, when he completely abandoned their calls for assistance, resulting in all those in jail, or with broken bones, or more likely dead.
 
cpwill said:
:doh Then he's an idiot. They just selected the guy in charge of the Council of Experts who will oversee the selection of the next Supreme Leader. Hint: not a Green Revolutionary, who are mostly either in jail or at home nursing broken bones and the like. Giving Iran nuclear capability in hopes of enabling the Green Revolution types is like giving Putin Crimea in hopes of enabling Russian Homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Yep, Obama wants to keep things "cool" with Iran (and Israel) until his term as POTUS is over. Meanwhile, Iran will continue to keep its nuclear program going, sponsor "terrorists" and expand its regional power.
 
Moot said:
It's a unilateral agreement that "sets up a framework for enforceability". Since the US hasn't had diplomatic relations with Iran for 35 years...they gotta start somewhere. What's the alternative besides war?
Click to expand...

Nuclear war. ;)
 
Moot said:
It's a unilateral agreement that "sets up a framework for enforceability". Since the US hasn't had diplomatic relations with Iran for 35 years...they gotta start somewhere. What's the alternative besides war?
Click to expand...

1. We are already at war with Iran, and have been for at least a decade. More, depending on how you count.

2. If by "war", however, you mean full conventional military seizure of sovereign space, well then, there is a full range of military and non-military options available prior to that. Simply re instituting the sanctions, for example.
 
Moot said:
Iran might be religious ideologues but I don't think they're irrational or suicidal.
Click to expand...

1. You are right that they are not irrational - however, understand that your concept of "rationality" and theirs differ sharply because they do not share your same a priori arguments.

1b. For example, extreme deep paranoia. The Iranians Really Truly Believe that Everyone Is Out To Get Them. Imagine US foreign policy being run by General Jack Ripper, and you get an idea of how the Iranian government sees the world every day.

2. Iran invented modern suicide terrorism (al qaeda learned from them, not the other way 'round), and their branch of Islam in particular highlights the significance of the martyr. This plays right back into rationality. If you believe fully that going out in a blaze of glory will win you incredible rewards in heaven, then doing so makes rational sense.
 
Moot said:
Iran might be religious ideologues but I don't think they're irrational or suicidal.
Click to expand...

You don't think the country of Iran's leaders' that have threatened to blow Israel off the map and track down Jews world wide to kill them aren't irrational?

You don't think Iran being one of the biggest state supporters of global terrorism isn't irrational?

That speaks volumes...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, Obama wants to keep things "cool" with Iran (and Israel) until his term as POTUS is over. Meanwhile, Iran will continue to keep its nuclear program going, sponsor "terrorists" and expand its regional power.
Click to expand...

Bingo. But by the time Iran actually publicly goes nuclear, it's Not His Problem.
 
cpwill said:
1. We are already at war with Iran, and have been for at least a decade. More, depending on how you count.
Click to expand...
Was it a declared war by congress or just wishful thinking by neocons?

2. If by "war", however, you mean full conventional military seizure of sovereign space, well then, there is a full range of military and non-military options available prior to that. Simply re instituting the sanctions, for example.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, the sanctions are still in place and they didn't prevent Iran from building/expanding it's nuclear energy program.
 
Moot said:
Iran might be religious ideologues but I don't think they're irrational or suicidal.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? You don't see (even a smidgeon of) irrationality or willingness to become martyrs among "religious ideologues" aka "extreme Islamic terrorists"?
 
cpwill said:
Bingo. But by the time Iran actually publicly goes nuclear, it's Not His Problem.
Click to expand...

What a patriot and brilliant world leader! We have been fundamentally transformed, indeed.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064419275 said:
You don't think the country of Iran's leaders' that have threatened to blow Israel off the map and track down Jews world wide to kill them aren't irrational?

You don't think Iran being one of the biggest state supporters of global terrorism isn't irrational?

That speaks volumes...
Click to expand...
Ignoring what I said and replacing it with a strawman speaks volumes, too.
 
cpwill said:
1. We are already at war with Iran, and have been for at least a decade. More, depending on how you count.

2. If by "war", however, you mean full conventional military seizure of sovereign space, well then, there is a full range of military and non-military options available prior to that. Simply re instituting the sanctions, for example.
Click to expand...

Why give up the inspections for 10 years? So they can continue their progress towards the bomb? Re-instating the sanctions won't prevent them from making a bomb, in fact it may very well give them a reason to hurry it along. Your mistrust of Iran no matter how justified does not mean that we should just sit by and let them build a bomb when there are alternatives that will strengthen the case of the moderates in Iran and at least delay their progress towards a bomb temporarily.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? You don't see (even a smidgeon of) irrationality or willingness to become martyrs among "religious ideologues" aka "extreme Islamic terrorists"?
Click to expand...
I thought we were talking Iran's government and as far as I know, they've never used "suicide bombers".
 
brothern said:
... ?

ad·mit confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance.

Kerry's not confessing or admitting anything. The deal doesn't and shouldn't be "legally binding. " It's an executive agreement.
Click to expand...

:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Moot said:
I thought we were talking Iran's government and as far as I know, they've never used "suicide bombers".
Click to expand...

Using your government no longer means squat if the acts can be made to look like "terrorism". Indeed, it would be foolish to use a missile fried from within your borders when alternate delivery means are possible. The 9/11/2001 actors (agents?) were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen yet the US military chose to invade Afghanistan and is still there, having wasted many billions, to this day. The "war on terror" works in mysterious ways.
 
Moot said:
Iran might be religious ideologues but I don't think they're irrational or suicidal.
Click to expand...
the $1 million question.
as a nation state one would hope so -but as a Shia fundamentalist regime one has to be concerned they aren't rational.

My personal opinion is Iran is doing so well (Hizbollah / Assad /Tikrit offensive) getting nukes would just be a cause for war against them.
While the Sunnis are stuck with internecine war, and Iranian hegemony is expansive

In other words they can prolly be forced to comply with the framework of the P5+1 , and Obama has the power to waive Congressional sanctions.
Past that who knows...we can only hope they are rational
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom