How to stop the Iran-nuke deal

The United States Senate should file suit against implementation of the pending agreement between Iran and the “P5+1” powers, based on the fact that the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (S.615) failed to address the potential that the conventional arms sanctions would also be terminated.  Thus, the latter must be perceived as a “treaty” between the United States and Iran, requiring a two-thirds affirmative senatorial vote prior to implementation.

The “legislative intent” of what became Public Law 114-17 on May 22, 2015 was reflected in its title, and, indeed, news reports revealed that Iran sought lifting of the additional military sanctions only during the past fortnight.  Indeed, the White House consistently refused to entertain the prospect that any other issues beyond nuclear disarmament – such as prisoner release be raised during these negotiations.

The final bill did encompass additional annexes that would subsequently be approved, but this was adopted with the understanding that the focus would be trained upon relief from “crippling” economic sanctions, and not from restrictions on Iranian purchase of armaments. 

Indeed, after the initial bill had been gutted and amended, the definition of “qualifying legislation” was only amplified by insertion of a clarifying phrase (“pursuant to such agreement”), and the “definitions” section was extensively amplified by insertion of a series of dependent clauses that appeared to remove wiggle-room that might subsequently be deemed desirable (“related to the nuclear program of Iran that includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties”).

Unfortunately, Page 11 of the text of the document states inter alia that a set of UNSC resolutions would be terminated, among them Resolution 1929, adopted in 2010.  The eighth paragraph thereof is pivotal:

[A]ll States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Iran, from or through their territories or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or related materiel, including spare parts, or items as determined by the Security Council or the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737 [2006] [“the Committee”], decides further that all States shall prevent the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms and related materiel, and, in this context, calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint over the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture and use of all other arms and related materiel.

Therefore, based upon public statements issued by the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch adopted this bill under the pretense that it would deal only with nuclear warfare, and not conventional warfare.  Thus, just as litigation challenging overreach regarding Obamacare was filed by the House of Representatives, a comparable effort to limit the conduct of a lawless POTUS should be initiated by the Senate.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. is a political activist and may be contacted at rsklaroff@gmail.com.

The United States Senate should file suit against implementation of the pending agreement between Iran and the “P5+1” powers, based on the fact that the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (S.615) failed to address the potential that the conventional arms sanctions would also be terminated.  Thus, the latter must be perceived as a “treaty” between the United States and Iran, requiring a two-thirds affirmative senatorial vote prior to implementation.

The “legislative intent” of what became Public Law 114-17 on May 22, 2015 was reflected in its title, and, indeed, news reports revealed that Iran sought lifting of the additional military sanctions only during the past fortnight.  Indeed, the White House consistently refused to entertain the prospect that any other issues beyond nuclear disarmament – such as prisoner release be raised during these negotiations.

The final bill did encompass additional annexes that would subsequently be approved, but this was adopted with the understanding that the focus would be trained upon relief from “crippling” economic sanctions, and not from restrictions on Iranian purchase of armaments. 

Indeed, after the initial bill had been gutted and amended, the definition of “qualifying legislation” was only amplified by insertion of a clarifying phrase (“pursuant to such agreement”), and the “definitions” section was extensively amplified by insertion of a series of dependent clauses that appeared to remove wiggle-room that might subsequently be deemed desirable (“related to the nuclear program of Iran that includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties”).

Unfortunately, Page 11 of the text of the document states inter alia that a set of UNSC resolutions would be terminated, among them Resolution 1929, adopted in 2010.  The eighth paragraph thereof is pivotal:

[A]ll States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Iran, from or through their territories or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or related materiel, including spare parts, or items as determined by the Security Council or the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737 [2006] [“the Committee”], decides further that all States shall prevent the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms and related materiel, and, in this context, calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint over the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture and use of all other arms and related materiel.

Therefore, based upon public statements issued by the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch adopted this bill under the pretense that it would deal only with nuclear warfare, and not conventional warfare.  Thus, just as litigation challenging overreach regarding Obamacare was filed by the House of Representatives, a comparable effort to limit the conduct of a lawless POTUS should be initiated by the Senate.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. is a political activist and may be contacted at rsklaroff@gmail.com.