Obama: Sanction Israel Not Iran

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote] Bismark wrote:

…it will be a long time before it’s nuclear weapons program can establish mutually assured destruction vis-a-vis Israel.[/quote]

But that isn’t particularly important. With a regime like Iran, the threshold for danger or threatening mischief is well below the point of MAD.

In addition to wanting nukes to wipe Israel off the map - a stated goal - Iran wants nuclear weapons to function as a Sword of Damocles over the region to get what it wants. That can be accomplished well before they arm to the point of MAD.[/quote]

Well said.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote] Bismark wrote:

…it will be a long time before it’s nuclear weapons program can establish mutually assured destruction vis-a-vis Israel.[/quote]

But that isn’t particularly important. With a regime like Iran, the threshold for danger or threatening mischief is well below the point of MAD.

In addition to wanting nukes to wipe Israel off the map - a stated goal - Iran wants nuclear weapons to function as a Sword of Damocles over the region to get what it wants. That can be accomplished well before they arm to the point of MAD.[/quote]

Well said.[/quote]

Yep, you cannot negotiate with crazy.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

While the informal term “deal” is used in media coverage of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations, an agreement resulting from them would constitute a binding instrument of international law. This is an understandable but fundmamental error for those whom international law is terra incognito. [/quote]

It’s only binding if the US Congress gives its advice and consent. It may need to be administered through the UN as someone else said here, but the only people who need to give consent are the POTUS and the US Congress, not the P5+1. If one of the aforementioned US branches does not consent, the treaty is null and void.

[quote]

This is incorrect. You continue to fail to understand how international law is formulated. If the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution. Congress has no authority in regard to the dealings of the UNSC, and has no power to veto any resolutions that body may conclude. Executive agreements do not require the Senate’s final approval. They are binding international obligations made solely by the executive branch. According to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.The Iran negotiations are not a bilateral arrangement between Iran and the United States, but a P5+1 negotiation with Iran. If a deal is reached, it is a deal that has the support of all the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. Article 25 of the UN Charter states that “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter”. UNSC resolutions are binding instruments of international, and consequently, American law.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote] Bismark wrote:

…it will be a long time before it’s nuclear weapons program can establish mutually assured destruction vis-a-vis Israel.[/quote]

But that isn’t particularly important. With a regime like Iran, the threshold for danger or threatening mischief is well below the point of MAD.

In addition to wanting nukes to wipe Israel off the map - a stated goal - Iran wants nuclear weapons to function as a Sword of Damocles over the region to get what it wants. That can be accomplished well before they arm to the point of MAD.[/quote]

Well said.[/quote]

Yep, you cannot negotiate with crazy.[/quote]

It’s worth noting that Iran has been found to be in compliance with its international obligations under the 2013 Geneva interim agreement, officially titled the Joint Plan of Action.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote] Bismark wrote:

…it will be a long time before it’s nuclear weapons program can establish mutually assured destruction vis-a-vis Israel.[/quote]

But that isn’t particularly important. With a regime like Iran, the threshold for danger or threatening mischief is well below the point of MAD.

In addition to wanting nukes to wipe Israel off the map - a stated goal - Iran wants nuclear weapons to function as a Sword of Damocles over the region to get what it wants. That can be accomplished well before they arm to the point of MAD.[/quote]

In regard to nuclear strategy, is is actually particularly important. Iran will be hard pressed to develop a robust second strike capability. Don’t get me wrong, I think Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state would be a devastating blow to regional and international security. The primary danger is horizontal proliferation in the region, not that posed to Israel. Above all, Iran seeks to export the Islamic revolution, which will be extinguished if it uses nuclear weapons. It’s worth noting that Israel enjoys nuclear hegemony in Southwest Asia, has a superpower patron in the United States, and is not a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This isn’t a normative statement, but a positivist one.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote] Bismark wrote:

…it will be a long time before it’s nuclear weapons program can establish mutually assured destruction vis-a-vis Israel.[/quote]

But that isn’t particularly important. With a regime like Iran, the threshold for danger or threatening mischief is well below the point of MAD.

In addition to wanting nukes to wipe Israel off the map - a stated goal - Iran wants nuclear weapons to function as a Sword of Damocles over the region to get what it wants. That can be accomplished well before they arm to the point of MAD.[/quote]

In regard to nuclear strategy, is is actually particularly important. Iran will be hard pressed to develop a robust second strike capability. Don’t get me wrong, I think Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state would be a devastating blow to regional and international security. The primary danger is horizontal proliferation in the region, not that posed to Israel. Above all, Iran seeks to export the Islamic revolution, which will be extinguished if it uses nuclear weapons. It’s worth noting that Israel enjoys nuclear hegemony in Southwest Asia, has a superpower patron in the United States, and is not a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This isn’t a normative statement, but a positivist one. [/quote]

The point about MAD, though, is that you and Varq are cavalier about Iran’s development of nukes because you minimize the Iranian threat and legitimize it only once it has reached the level of MAD.

That is catastrophic naivete. A nuclear Iran is very dangerous, even if after Iran launches a nuclear strike, the counterpunch would eliminate Iran. The world would not benefit from finding out if that arithmetic is right.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

While the informal term “deal” is used in media coverage of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations, an agreement resulting from them would constitute a binding instrument of international law. This is an understandable but fundmamental error for those whom international law is terra incognito. [/quote]

It’s only binding if the US Congress gives its advice and consent. It may need to be administered through the UN as someone else said here, but the only people who need to give consent are the POTUS and the US Congress, not the P5+1. If one of the aforementioned US branches does not consent, the treaty is null and void.

[/quote]

This is incorrect. You continue to fail to understand how international law is formulated. If the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution. Congress has no authority in regard to the dealings of the UNSC, and has no power to veto any resolutions that body may conclude. Executive agreements do not require the Senate’s final approval. They are binding international obligations made solely by the executive branch. According to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.The Iran negotiations are not a bilateral arrangement between Iran and the United States, but a P5+1 negotiation with Iran. If a deal is reached, it is a deal that has the support of all the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. Article 25 of the UN Charter states that “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter”. UNSC resolutions are binding instruments of international, and consequently, American law.

[/quote]

Not necessarily. There is some question as to whether a president can negotiate agreements in contravention of statutes enacted by Congress, and therefore cannot create international obligations contrary to those statutes. And the Supreme Court will not hesitate to defy international opinion if that is the case (see Medellin v. Texas).

Complications like this are one reason why UNSC resolutions are worded to request assistance from countries as opposed to orders to do certain things.

And, as a practical matter, even if the UNSC elected to order the US to drop sanctions (with Obama’s agreement), there isn’t a chance in Hell Congress will go along - Republicans or Democrats.

I’m far from an expert on the middle east, but i approve of both of these policies. Given Israel’s demonstrated penchant for numerous human rights violations and near genocide,(69% civilian casualty rate is NOT okay.) not to mention they are very nuclear capable, i think it’s about damn time we show Bibi a firmer hand. I’m tired of him (correctly?) thinking he can dictate US foreign policy.

I’m well aware that even if a deal is reached with Iran, there’s no guarantee that they’ll play along, but i think it’s worthwhile to try. I prefer at least attempting diplomacy over “bomb/invade first and ask questions later.” Speak softly but carry a big stick and all that. It’s not like anybody will let Iran get nukes if the deal falls through.

[quote]boswick wrote:
Given Israel’s demonstrated penchant for numerous human rights violations and near genocide,(69% civilian casualty rate is NOT okay.) [/quote]

Links?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]boswick wrote:
Given Israel’s demonstrated penchant for numerous human rights violations and near genocide,(69% civilian casualty rate is NOT okay.) [/quote]

Links?
[/quote]

I’d love for him to detail which human rights treaties Israel has been found in noncompliance of. Yeah, that figure is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]boswick wrote:
Given Israel’s demonstrated penchant for numerous human rights violations and near genocide,(69% civilian casualty rate is NOT okay.) [/quote]

Links?
[/quote]

I’d love for him to detail which human rights treaties Israel has been found in noncompliance of. Yeah, that figure is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg.[/quote]

LOL. I’m going to steal that figure of speech Bismark

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

While the informal term “deal” is used in media coverage of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations, an agreement resulting from them would constitute a binding instrument of international law. This is an understandable but fundmamental error for those whom international law is terra incognito. [/quote]

It’s only binding if the US Congress gives its advice and consent. It may need to be administered through the UN as someone else said here, but the only people who need to give consent are the POTUS and the US Congress, not the P5+1. If one of the aforementioned US branches does not consent, the treaty is null and void.

[/quote]

This is incorrect. You continue to fail to understand how international law is formulated. If the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution. Congress has no authority in regard to the dealings of the UNSC, and has no power to veto any resolutions that body may conclude. Executive agreements do not require the Senate’s final approval. They are binding international obligations made solely by the executive branch. According to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.The Iran negotiations are not a bilateral arrangement between Iran and the United States, but a P5+1 negotiation with Iran. If a deal is reached, it is a deal that has the support of all the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. Article 25 of the UN Charter states that “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter”. UNSC resolutions are binding instruments of international, and consequently, American law.

[/quote]

Not necessarily. There is some question as to whether a president can negotiate agreements in contravention of statutes enacted by Congress, and therefore cannot create international obligations contrary to those statutes. And the Supreme Court will not hesitate to defy international opinion if that is the case (see Medellin v. Texas).

Complications like this are one reason why UNSC resolutions are worded to request assistance from countries as opposed to orders to do certain things.

And, as a practical matter, even if the UNSC elected to order the US to drop sanctions (with Obama’s agreement), there isn’t a chance in Hell Congress will go along - Republicans or Democrats.[/quote]

My argument is based upon the relationship between international and domestic law, as supported by stare decisis. If you wish to argue that domestic noncompliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions is legal under international law, you are on very untenable ground. Of the five sources of international law identified by Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, all are applicable to my argument. These are 1) international treaties; 2) international custom; 3) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; 4) judicial decisions; and 5) the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists.

Treaties and (other international agreements) enjoy parity as federal with statutes enacted by Congress. Thus, if a conflict between the two arises, courts will ordinarily use the rule to deal with conflicts in statute law to resolve the inconsistency. A treaty or statute adopted later will override an earlier inconsistent statute. The problem, of course, comes when a later treaty conflicts with an earlier one; or when an act of congress conflicts with an earlier treaty. As with customary law, the Charming Betsy rule - that is, courts should presume that, as a rule, legislators do not deliver stately intend to violate international law -forms a relevant consideration for the construction of purpose and intent. If the court cannot find a way to resolve the differences, then the treaty, to the extent of the inflict, has no effect. Again, while the statute will in effect as domestic law, the legislation will not relieve the United States of its international obligations and the possibility for any breach of duty. I draw your attention to the reasoning of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Diggs v. Schultz (1972).

“We think that there can no blinking the purpose and effect if the Byrd Amendment. It was to detach this country from the U.N. boycott of Southern Rhodesia in blatant disregard of our treaty undertakings.”

Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties holds that “a party may not invoke the provisions f its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” Though technically not applicable to a congressional abrogation of a potential P5+1 deal because the the aforementioned Vienna Convention has not been ratified by the U.S, the question involves the status of this principle as customary law. Insofar as Article 27 reflects a codification of customary law, the U.S. would not escape the onus of violation. Pacta sunt servanda is an undeniable and unambiguous example of international international customary law. Domestic noncompliance with a UNSCR would be a clear and blatant material breach of American obligations.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]boswick wrote:
Given Israel’s demonstrated penchant for numerous human rights violations and near genocide,(69% civilian casualty rate is NOT okay.) [/quote]

Links?
[/quote]

I’d love for him to detail which human rights treaties Israel has been found in noncompliance of. Yeah, that figure is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg.[/quote]

LOL. I’m going to steal that figure of speech Bismark[/quote]

Texas has no peer when it comes to regional phrases.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote] Bismark wrote:

…it will be a long time before it’s nuclear weapons program can establish mutually assured destruction vis-a-vis Israel.[/quote]

But that isn’t particularly important. With a regime like Iran, the threshold for danger or threatening mischief is well below the point of MAD.

In addition to wanting nukes to wipe Israel off the map - a stated goal - Iran wants nuclear weapons to function as a Sword of Damocles over the region to get what it wants. That can be accomplished well before they arm to the point of MAD.[/quote]

In regard to nuclear strategy, is is actually particularly important. Iran will be hard pressed to develop a robust second strike capability. Don’t get me wrong, I think Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state would be a devastating blow to regional and international security. The primary danger is horizontal proliferation in the region, not that posed to Israel. Above all, Iran seeks to export the Islamic revolution, which will be extinguished if it uses nuclear weapons. It’s worth noting that Israel enjoys nuclear hegemony in Southwest Asia, has a superpower patron in the United States, and is not a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This isn’t a normative statement, but a positivist one. [/quote]

The point about MAD, though, is that you and Varq are cavalier about Iran’s development of nukes because you minimize the Iranian threat and legitimize it only once it has reached the level of MAD.

That is catastrophic naivete. A nuclear Iran is very dangerous, even if after Iran launches a nuclear strike, the counterpunch would eliminate Iran. The world would not benefit from finding out if that arithmetic is right.
[/quote]

I’m hardly “cavalier” about Iran developing nuclear weapons. Playing devil’s advocate is a stimulating intellectual exercise, and I simply attempt to red team these discussions which invariably devolve into the nescient “let’s bomb Iran into the Stone Age!” I believe that Iran- given it’s support of terrorist organizations, recalcitrance under its international obligations, and aspirations of regional hegemony - is a threat to regional and intenational security. By pointing out the nuclear disparity between Israel and a hypothetical nascent nuclear Iran, I merely wished to illustrate the material and strategic dynamics of the dyad.

I am not a pacifist in regard to the Iranian nuclear program. Iran must not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons, and military force should be employed to that end if all other tools of foreign policy have been exhausted. With respect to the Israelis, the greatest danger pose by Iran going nuclear is a cascade of horizontal proliferation and the demise of the NPT. Those who contend that “you can’t negotiate with crazy” are wholly ignorant of Iran. By all qualitative and qualitative measures, Iran has been found compliant with its obligations under the Geneva interim agreement of 2013. Iran’s nuclear program is more transparent and limited than it has been in many years. Though the lens of cost/benefit analysis, diplomacy should be given a chance.

Bismarck,

That was a lot of ink spilled over what amounts to a red herring - there is no treaty…at least not yet, but there may never be…so the legal significance of a treaty is irrelevant. If the agreement is not a treaty ratified by the Senate, it isn’t automatically binding, for reasons discussed.

Further, academic niceties over what constitutes “international law” don’t drive real world events because nations don’t view them as such. The United States, for example, never ratified the Vienna Convention, and self-selects which provisions it will follow under the academic rubric of “customary” law. You think the United States will be hidebound by provisions its Senate had no say in, that it will undo the very sanctions Congress instituted but had no hand in deciding how or why the sanctions should be undone? Think again.

As I mentioned above, it’s because if situations like this that UN resolutions - which are not treaties - are worded as requests to do something as opposed to commands. The UNSC isn’t about to risk its own institutional crisis by demanding the United States undo sanctions when no treaty is on the books.

Screwing over Israel…

Obama-land. Welcome to it.

[quote] Bismark wrote:

Those who contend that “you can’t negotiate with crazy” are wholly ignorant of Iran.

[/quote]

Bollocks. What would you know about Iran and the ME? I have Iranian friends who were born and grew up there. They aren’t spouting the same stories as your liberal professors and Democrat FP think tanks. My friends tell me the Khomeinists are fucking batshit crazy and dangerous. And everything I’ve read about them tends to confirm that diagnosis.

I criticized Netanyahu’s failure to provide a viable alternative to any agreement the P5+1 talks may produce. A red herring is a logical fallacy that consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first. Given Congress’s erroneous “letter” to the Iranian leadership regarding a potential deal, how does the discussion of the legal character of a potential Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action constitute a red herring?

You’re incorrect on more than one count, as I’ve demonstrated via stare decisis. You, like the Congressmen who wrote the letter to Iran, have an erroneous understanding of treaty law and the US Constitution. The Constitution does not define the term treaty, but but has two relevant provisions dealing with treaty practice. Under Article II, Ã??Ã?§ 2.2, the president has the power with “the advice and consent” of two-thirds of the Senate to make treaties. The president ratifies and proclaims treaties, not the Senate. Article VI, Ã??Ã?§ 2, declares that “all Treaties made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” In addition to “treaties”, the president has the power to make other international agreements (1) on the basis of congressional authorization, (2) on the basis of his own foreign relations power, or (3) on the basis of authority contained in an earlier treaty made pursuant to Article II. These agreements are also considered to be federal law, and enjoy legal parity with a “treaty” that has been ratified.

The fact that you write “international law” is indicative that the discipline is terra incognito for you. I’m not going to elaborate on why international law is indeed law, as it goes beyond the scope of this discussion. There are numerous undergraduate texts that do an immeasurably better job of establishing the validity of the field than I ever could. So far, you haven’t cited even one source of international law.

You’ve conflated UN general assembly resolutions with UNSC resolutions. The former are indeed nothing more than recommendations, while the latter are Diktate that absolutely constitute international agreements that impose international obligations. As I’ve demonstrated, It does not matter if domestic legislation abrogates a state from the domestic legal obligations of a “treaty” that has been ratified or a UNSCR that is of equal legal standing; abrogation or countervailing domestic legislation does not relieve a state of its original international obligations. That isn’t an abstract “academic nicety” - which is ironic given you haven’t bothered to cite any real world examples while I have done so numerous times - but a position based upon stare decisis. Pacta sunt servanda is an example of jus cogens - a peremptory norm - that states do not have a choice in being subject to or not. Consent is not required. Customary law has been established by precedent to be undeniably internationally binding, jus cogens even more so.

Such an international agreement, if it required unilateral U.S. sanction relief, would be termed non-self executing, as it would require additional domestic legislation for implementation to take place. If congress is recalcitrant in the face of international obligations, the US will be in material breach of its international obligations, which would be ironic given Iranian compliance under the Geneva interim agreement. US sanctions UNSR the UNSC sanction regime have already been reduced incrementally in accordance with the agreement, which again, is as legally binding as a ratified “treaty”.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Bismark wrote:

Those who contend that “you can’t negotiate with crazy” are wholly ignorant of Iran.

[/quote]

Bollocks. What would you know about Iran and the ME? I have Iranian friends who were born and grew up there. They aren’t spouting the same stories as your liberal professors and Democrat FP think tanks. My friends tell me the Khomeinists are fucking batshit crazy and dangerous. And everything I’ve read about them tends to confirm that diagnosis.[/quote]

No more “crazy” than the Zealots of Judea, certainly. Ideologically driven actors are not ipso facto irrational, in the cause and effect sense of the word. I’m not going to bother producing the psychological literature that supports that position, as there is a shit load of it.

Rumor is that the French leadership - importantly, members of the Socialist Party and in charge of a country that is a permanent member of the UNSC - has a low opinion of Obama-Kerry, thinking them naive and unskilled at diplomacy.

Say that out loud - French left-of-center diplomats who have no inherent love for Israel think Obama-Kerry wimpy and too willing to concede on Iran. Just wow.

I said it before - this is simply about Obama doing something for his legacy. He isn’t interested in a real deal. He merely wants to claim a quick “peace achievement” - however fleeting - and punt this down the road to the next several presidents and Congresses.