“Death to America!”—a daily chant of Iranian leaders
President Obama claims that the Iran Deal is not a treaty and, therefore, is not covered by the Constitution’s requirement of two-thirds Senate approval to be enacted. Despite Obama’s claims, the Iran Deal is a treaty—along the lines of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty—and does require ratification.
Muddying the Waters
The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act was passed by Congress in an un-Constitutional nod to President Obama’s claim that the deal was not a treaty. Obama signed it to avoid losing the legal argument that the Iran Deal was a treaty.
Because of how the legislation was written, both Senate and House must approve the deal—not just the Senate—and the president’s veto would mean that two-thirds must disapprove of the treaty to block its taking effect. This is much different from needing the broad-based two-thirds consensus for America to be bound to an agreement by treaty! And, since both chambers of Congress vote, it presents a double-difficulty in overriding any veto.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner had to be astonishingly corrupt to allow this. Their monstrous betrayal sets up a mechanism that—arguably—increases the chances of a nuclear war in the foreseeable future. Although many still claim that the deal is a treaty that should be submitted for two-thirds ratification, the fast-track bill passed by the Congress muddies the waters enough that it would likely take a prolonged legal process to deal with the matter effectively.
Hope on the Horizon
Although the situation seems all but inevitable in its outcome, there is hope that this deal might be defeated for a different reason: since Obama claimed the Iran Deal is not a treaty, it surely does not possess the stature needed to replace a bona fide treaty with which it conflicts. And that treaty is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (also known, quite simply, as the Nonproliferation Treaty, or the NPT). The US ratified the NPT in 1970.
The NPT recognizes five nuclear-weapon states (NWSs): the US, Russia, the UK, France, and China (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which are likewise five of the six signatories to the Iran Deal). Four other countries are known to possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. (Although Israel has never openly admitted to having nukes, President Obama leaked the information after Netanyahu addressed the US Congress: http://yehweh.blogspot.com/2015/03/obama-on-collision-course-with-god.html#.VbfBbvlViko.)
The NWSs recognized by the NPT are bound by its strictures and unable to revoke it, unless, in accordance with language in Article X, three months’ notice is given. On May 11, 1995, all signatories agreed to extend the treaty indefinitely.
Key Provisions of the NPT
Article I: Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control [which would include delivery systems, such as missiles] over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture [which would ban attempts by Iran to acquire nuclear weapons or their delivery systems].
Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state’s peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices [which means that Iran, as a signatory to the NPT, must submit to IAEA inspections, independent of any Iran Deal, especially since the Iran Deal is not a treaty that could replace the NPT, in whole or in part].
Article IV: Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty. [This is the justification Iran originally used for developing nuclear technology, before it became evident that they were in violation of the NPT. However, the Iran Deal cannot replace the NPT, since it is, according to Obama, not a treaty. What remains to be done is simply to enforce the NPT!] (Read the entire text of the NPT here: http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html.)
In the Statute of the IAEA, there is language in Article XII, Section 1, that commissions the agency “[t]o examine the design of specialized equipment and facilities, including nuclear reactors, and to approve it only from the view-point of assuring that it will not further any military purpose.” (Read the text of the IAEA Statute here: https://www.iaea.org/about/statute.) So, there is a policy already in place to govern Iran’s scofflaw behavior.
Scuttling the Deal
What now remains is to scuttle the deal with Iran and to enforce the NPT, by use of military force, if need be. (The Korean War, remember, was a UN police action.) And, while the idea of fighting may prove abhorrent, the idea of nuclear warfare should be more abhorrent still. It is time to stop the illegitimate Iran Deal in its tracks.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com