There have been many questions floating around concerning the legality and ethics of Obama’s and Kerry’s Iran nuclear deal.
One of the concerns expressed is that once certain sanctions are lifted and businesses are allowed to sign contracts with Iran, what happens if it is learned that Iran is failing to live up to their part of the deal the sanctions need to be restored? Doing so could cost companies and some European nations millions of dollars and worsen the already fragile economy of the region.
Another concern expressed over the Iran nuclear deal is whether or not it is placing Israel in greater danger. By lifting sanctions, Iran is set to receive $100 billion to $150 billion. They have vowed to help Syria’s dictator Assad by financially supporting his efforts to fight off the rebels. If that happens, then 6,000 to 8,000 Hezbollah fighters will be able to leave Syria and return to their positions in Lebanon. Hezbollah already has around 100,000 rockets strategically placed in populated areas throughout Lebanon where they are all aimed at Israel. I spell this out in more detail here, but be it known that the Iran deal places our once closest ally in the region in more danger than ever before.
The questions of legality of the Iran nuclear deal are surfacing by some senior US officials who are involved with the implementation of the deal. They are pointing out that Section 5.1.2 of Annex II of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal, violates Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act that Obama signed into law in 2012.
James Rosen with FoxNews.com explains:
“At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. ‘shall…license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.’
In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.
Indeed, ITRA also stipulated, in Section 218, that when it comes to doing business with Iran, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent firms shall in all cases be treated exactly the same as U.S. firms: namely, what is prohibited for U.S. parent firms has to be prohibited for foreign subsidiaries, and what is allowed for foreign subsidiaries has to be allowed for U.S. parent firms.
What’s more, ITRA contains language, in Section 605, requiring that the terms spelled out in Section 218 shall remain in effect until the president of the United States certifies two things to Congress: first, that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and second, that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.
Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.”
Rosen also points out:
“As the Iran deal is an ‘executive agreement’ and not a treaty – and has moreover received no vote of ratification from the Congress, explicit or symbolic – legal analysts inside and outside of the Obama administration have concluded that the JCPOA is vulnerable to challenge in the courts, where federal case law had held that U.S. statutes trump executive agreements in force of law.”
We all know that Barack Obama is such an honorable leader that he would never intentionally break or violate any law, would he? In fact, Obama has never let the US Constitution, any federal law or Congress stop him from doing anything he feels like. If Congress won’t cooperate, Obama just issues another executive order or action to carry out his agenda. Whenever he is challenged in court, he sends his legal henchmen to the courts to instruct the judges that they have no authority to question Obama’s actions in anything.
Therefore, legal or not, it seems nothing will stop Obama from breaking another law at the expense of the United States, Israel and Europe.