Iran deal “not legally binding”

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

More absurdity from the Obama administration: In a letter the State Department wrote to a congressman, they admitted that the Iran treaty was not a “legally binding” document.

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.

In other words, the whole kerfuffle about the Iran deal was garbage. There was no deal. All the Obama administration accomplished was to lay out what they’d like Iran to agree to, even as Iran refused to agree to it. Worse, what the Obama administration wished Iran would agree to was still weak and pointless and would allow them to develop nuclear weapons. They rejected that sweet deal (that Congress approved) and instead are proceeding with nuclear weapon development as fast as they can.


  • Cotour

    Is there a point where whether strategies applied to Iran over the years is morally offensive to Obama or not there comes a point where taking actions that may be intended to reconcile in someones personal opinion (Obama’s) those strategies boarders on treason?

    I call Obama a moral litteralist, he seems unable or unwilling to see things in any other way other than from the point of view of his personal morality or belief system. And if you know anything about the administration of government, morality for the most part really has no place in the calculus. Morality in this core context is optional, more window dressing for public consumption than anything else.

    He and his henchman, Kerry, another leftist, seems very focused on creating a power parity rather than acting in the interests of America. You do not empower an enemy government when it is not in any way necessary. When someone in power empowers an enemy for no good reason other than a personal opinion there is a name for that action.

    We are all witness to the confusion and danger in the world when these weak idealistic thoughts are realized. Taking care of business sometimes means doing what is personally offensive to leadership.

  • hondo

    He (they) do not see Iran as an immediate enemy. He (they) see those “bitter clingers” as the true immediate enemy. His (they) definition of a “bitter clinger” is extremely broad, and would probably include everyone here – including Bob.

    Sad situation with ominous overtones. I have no idea how this will turn out. I am retired and relocating in a matter of weeks to “bitter clinger” territory in Pa. Eventually will end up in the Appalachians of W Va. Come a long way since Flatbush Brooklyn. Guess I’ll just have to sit back and watch from my front porch.

  • Cotour

    “and would probably include everyone here – including Bob.”

    Everyone here STARTING with Bob!

  • Phill O

    As we learn more and more about Hilliary and the Clinton Foundation, it would not surprise me if the only motivating factor behind Obama and the Iran Nuclear Deal is money in his pocket and those supporting him.

    I believe what is morally offensive to Obama, is extortion money not going to him. A little harsh, but the reality I have come to a conclusion on.

  • Keith

    Too bad the last two presidential elections were legally binding.

  • Al

    The Iran deal was really about providing cover for Iran while they develop their bomb just like freeing Bowe Bergdahl was just an excuse to release terrorist leaders. Obama sympathizes with the Muslim cause and view western civilization as the font of all evil. Most of what he does makes perfect sense when viewed from this perspective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *