Tuesday, July 18, 2017

On the administration re-certifyig that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA

Just came across two views on this that, while they have in common the core understanding that the agreement is bad and should never have been drafted and signed, come to different conclusions as to whether we are stuck with it.

John Bolton says there is no reason for these quarterly recertifications:

Certification is an unforced error because the applicable statute (the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, or “INARA”) requires neither certifying Iranian compliance nor certifying Iranian noncompliance. Paula DeSutter and I previously explained that INARA requires merely that the Secretary of State (to whom President Obama delegated the task) “determine…whether [he] is able to certify” compliance (emphasis added). The secretary can satisfy the statute simply by “determining” that he is not prepared for now to certify compliance and that U.S. policy is under review.
This is a policy of true neutrality while the review continues. Certifying compliance is far from neutral. Indeed, it risks damaging American credibility should a decision subsequently be made to abrogate the deal.

He addresses the partner-in-good-faith issue by stating forthrightly what America's priority ought to be:

Within the Trump administration, JCPOA supporters contend that rejecting the deal would harm the United States by calling into question our commitment to international agreements generally. There is ominous talk of America “not living up to its word.”

This is nonsense. The president’s primary obligation is to keep American citizens safe from foreign threats. Should President George W. Bush have kept the United States in the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, rather than withdraw to allow the creation of a limited national missile-defense shield to protect against rogue-state nuclear attacks? Was Washington’s “commitment” to the ABM Treaty more important than protecting innocent civilians from nuclear attacks by the ayatollahs or North Korea’s Kim family dictatorship?

Similarly, President Bush directed that we unsign the treaty creating the International Criminal Court because we had no intention of ever becoming a party. Was he also wrong to extricate American service members and intelligence personnel — not to mention ordinary citizens — from the risk of arbitrary, unjustified and politically motivated ICC detention and prosecution?
Of course, the answer is “no.” The president would be derelict in his duty if he failed to put the interests of U.S. citizens first, rather than worrying about “the international community” developing a case of the vapors. The Trump administration itself has already shown the courage of its convictions by withdrawing from the Paris climate accords. Compared to that, abrogating the JCPOA is a one-inch putt. 
Strieff at Red State says that determining an inability to certify is a de facto acknowledgement of Iranian compliance:

The rub is that under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) it is left to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to vet Iranian compliance and, absent a negative report, the administration has to either abrogate the agreement arbitrarily or it has to begrudgingly recertify Iran as being in compliance.
Now, the US is free to impose more sanctions on Iran due to its ongoing provable hostile moves, and strieff notes several that are in the works.

But the best he can muster in terms of arguing that we can't just pull out altogether is to say that we'd take "a major diplomatic hit."

I think Bolton effectively rebuts this case. When US interests, most urgently its national security, are at stake, we can hardly be concerned with "'the international community' developing a case of the vapors."



27 comments:

  1. Problem is putting the nation of Israel first which is not mentioned here. Is it true that the US broke every treaty we ever signed with the Indians? We got a huge AJ fan in the Oval Office. I know, I know, you hate the evil Trump is yet love all the good he spreads.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How some questions about treaties with various aboriginal societies over a century ago translates into a position that Iran should have a nuclear weapon and missile arsenal is not clear. Needs some fleshing out.
    And no administration has ever had a policy of putting Israel first, but when our policy is wise and good, we treat it like a top-tier ally.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Key words treaties and breaking them. They're in your post. Another key word is trust or something like it. Flesh it out, kind sir, if you will, always here to help you grow and prosper in all areas of life and afterlife, if I can. Note that the topic has now morphed into even the afterlife, which you constantly cite these days.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Still not making the connection. Why is trust an issue in the Iran situation? Iran is our mortal enemy. It says so frequently, most notably several times since the JCPOA was signed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Trust is always an issue but here you said it was this treaty's supporters in the Trump administration who are rightly raising what you and Bolton of your ilk denigrate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, their position gets a mention, but I hope you can see that it is not the LITD position.

    Why would any nation-state concern itself with whether it is trusted by a mortal enemy? For that matter, why would any nation-state ever negotiate with a mortal enemy?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This treaty was an international effort, not just US. I think the rationale for negotiating was to avoid war. That is why Netanyahu got so pissed. Is it in America's best interest to have its fortunes rise and fall with Israel's? I think neither North Korea nor Iran believed this agreement would ever wash long-term. If we're back to square one does that mean war? Trump is the most unpopular president ever after his first 6 months in office. That's going to make a great Commander in Chief? Maybe, wagging the dog, but I dunno. Hawk on!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Key line in your last comment: " I think neither North Korea nor Iran believed this agreement would ever wash long-term."

    Most of the rest of it is shit, particularly the digression into Trump's unpopularity.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Israel has had a long history of humiliating the US. From stealing nuclear material for its nuclear bombs (Apollo Nuclear Plant), to the cold-blooded murder of US sailors (USS Liberty) during Johnson’s years, to standing up to President George Bush on the loan guarantees, to continual spying on the US during Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton years… to undermining our national security prior to, during and after September 11th.

    Israel, through its agents and Fifth Column throughout various US administrations, made sure its agents and Fifth Columns are appointed in key administrative positions in the White House, in the Departments of State and Defense, formulating policies that have proven over time to have been a total disaster to the US; policies that have cost America trillions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and injured American soldiers… always endangering America’s interests and putting American citizens in harms way.

    from http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/30/israel-and-the-humiliation-of-america/

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is evil horse shit, pure lies. Subsequent investigations of the Liberty incident by both the US and Israeli government determined that it was a mistake, and Israel apologized.

    I don't know how you sleep at night, harboring this kind of toxic shit in your heart.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The rest of that God-damned article portrays the dynamics of the last administration as Israel humiliating Obama. Anyone who doesn't hate Western civilization knows it was the exact opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That whole Veterans Today website has an anti-Israel stance.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The more I look into what Veterans Today is all about the more horrified I am that you would cite it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks for the prayers, they're always appreciated. I trust they are for the continuedb prosperity and happiness of me & mine.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Do you share Veterans Today's orientation on the Middle East?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Do you share Veterans Today's orientation on the Middle East?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Veterans Today (VT) is an independent online journal representing the positions and providing news for members of the military and veteran community in areas of national security, geopolitical stability and domestic policy. All writers are fully independent and represent their own point of view and not necessarily the point of view of any other writer, administrator or entity.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pray for the health and healing of all veterans of America's wars, now and in the future. When you come home and reflect on the horror you look for blame and what the freedom you told you were fighting for actually meant.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This is pathetic. I ask a very simple question and you dance around it with some boilerplate about it being an independent news forum, and then a call to pray for all veterans. I can recall when I've seen such a stunning display of moral cowardice

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's the same pattern we see under the post on university diversity administrators. I asked you where you stood on hiring them, not where some trustees stand. You are clearly reluctant to put your name on a definitive position.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Pathetic? You're way over the top there bloggie. I've expressed support for the Jimmy Carter studied view of matters Israel and often voiced my dislike for Netanono here so, yep, place me more in the veterans camp. And I said it was not my call on the Diversity Administrators, but rather an issue to be brought before the governing bodies mandated by law. So, if that was not clear to you, it should be now, though I fully expect to still be called pathetic moving forward. I do know that you only proclaim climate change denial here and will not brook further debate. You also refuse to discuss the legalization of marijuana here as if it is not an issue of human freedom that the great unwashed seem to find much current interest in.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sure it's your call re: diversity officers. Unless you take a pass because you have no strong views one way or another, which amounts to consigning America's campuses to further totalitarianism.

    And I'll take your statement that you go with a Carter-style view of Israel as a fairly solid answer. It's vile, but it's a pretty direct answer to the question.

    And you'll know I think marijuana policy has moved up from being a fifteenth-tier issue when I blog about it.

    ReplyDelete