Hot answers tagged

56

From Wikipedia: Under U.S. law, the JCPOA is a non-binding political commitment. According to the U.S. State Department, it specifically is not an executive agreement or a treaty. There are widespread incorrect reports that it is an executive agreement. In contrast to treaties, which require two-thirds of the Senate to consent to ratification, political ...


48

The deal was not only between the USA and Iran, as other countries and the EU were signatories: China France Germany European Union Russia United Kingdom The situation with those signatories is complicated, as neither they nor Iran have withdrawn from the treaty. Those signatories are not trading with Iran due to USA sanction regimes; the pact is formally ...


26

American media is, unsurprisingly, biased with a pro-American viewpoint. Thus, we see that Trump "withdraws" from the agreement where Iran "violates" the agreement. In fact, it is more correct to say that America violated the agreement, as the word violation suggests acting in bad faith. By every account, Iran had held to the terms of the deal in good faith ...


23

It is important to understand the underlying technology and politics of nuclear weapons deals. In order to build a nuclear weapon, the most important and difficult task is acquiring enough Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239 at weapons grade purity. This means that the key to building a weapon, and consequently controlling weapons development is controlling the ...


20

Iran does have genuine reasons for developing a civilian nuclear power industry. Iran's oil production is comparable to that of Iraq or Kuwait, but Iran has a much larger population. Between declining production and increasing domestic consumption of subsidized gasoline, Iran risks becoming a petroleum importer in a few years. Nuclear power (especially ...


17

Donald Trump has shown an enormous amount of, if hate isn't the right word, dislike for almost all of his predecessor's policies. He has reversed everything from the Paris Agreement to Obamacare to the Cuba policy. Especially when it comes to Palestine and Israel the current and former administration has taken diametrically opposite stances. Obama did not ...


11

It isn't possible to discuss why every person, or even every politician, might be opposed to the nuclear accord with Iran. As such, I'm going to cover only a couple prominent or common criticisms. The first is that the deal expires after several years. While it is possible that the United States and other members of the P5 + 1 may try to negotiate an ...


11

No sites were agreed as "off limits." There is no clause in the agreement saying that any are. When negotiating the deal, there was, of course, noise and bluster, mostly from politicians looking to score points with their bases about that, but there was never any kind of site that was declared to be off limits, and Iran never refused access to any sites ...


10

The EU was heavily involved in negotiating the deal, see here. Europe also has better relations with Iran than the US has with Iran, this means that the EU isn't likely to yield to the US on this issue unless there is convincing evidence that Iran is violating the terms of the deal. While the current US administration is not happy with certain details in ...


10

The basic issue US media has with this situation is the same issue they have had a lot in the Trump era: accurately reporting what was done (in this case, the US broke its word on an international agreement) would look a lot like a partisan political attack. This would violate the principle of "balance", which by training and ideology they just cannot make ...


9

They are not. (this really should be the end of the answer) President Trump and the EU are out of sync about the nuclear deal. The majority of lawmakers in all participating countries agree on the benefits of the deal and the fact that Iran has not violated it. The reason that some in the US are not in favor of the deal are that they don't think it quite ...


8

Iran does not oppose nuclear inspections. there are many things that can be discussed about Iran's nuclear program, as my friend Jasper talked about, that I thought are off-topic according to your question, but apparently not. it'd also be good if you could provide some evidence for your statements. IAEA are welcome to visit Iran's Nuclear program's sites, ...


8

No the IAEA did not enter a "self-certification agreement with the Iranian authorities" regarding Parchin if that's what this confusing question is about. Instead The diplomats, who have knowledge of the deal, said that while the IAEA inspectors will not be next to the Iranian technicians when they take samples, they will be at Parchin overseeing the ...


7

There will be a huge ripple effect if the US imposes secondary sanctions. Individual companies from the other signature powers would be sanctioned in the US for trading with Iran. The new US ambassador to Germany has called on German companies to stop dealing with Iran.


6

The trade volume between Iran and the US is negligible compared to that between Iran and the other JCPOA parties. So whether or not the US embargoes Iran doesn't really matter. It's mostly a symbolic gesture. The important questions for the future of the JCPOA are: Are the US able and willing to impose secondary sanctions on the EU when they refuse to ...


6

Much like with Iraq, the US started from their politically-based desired answer, and worked backwards to justify them. The EU seems to be evaluating the situation based on facts. The Iran nuclear accord, assailed by President Trump and his revamped retinue of advisers, received a strong endorsement Monday from a bipartisan group of more than 100 national ...


5

The agreement is very bad for Russia. There are two reasons. Russia has built the Busher nuclear power plant in Iran partially at her own expense on the promise by Iran that they will be buying nuclear fuel from Russia for this plant to operate. Now, when Iran is allowed to enrich uranium themselves, Russia is at big loss. It turns out they built the Busher ...


5

As Philipp mentioned in a comment, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is both available online and short. The basic agreement and controls are: Iran agrees not to pursue nuclear weapons, but may pursue nuclear energy for other purposes. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is requested to monitor and verify Iran for compliance. A joint ...


5

Note: It is almost always a good idea to link to the source of the news, to better address the points noted there. Technically, it does not violate the deal because the deal forbids Iran to enriching Uranium, not to develop power plants. The main way of ensuring that are the ongoing IAEA missions, that so far have raised no warning signs. That said, ...


5

To understand the issue, you must first understand what led to the sanctions. When Iran first sought to develop atomic energy, they had to agree to the conditions set out by the IAEA, to get access to nuclear technology maintained by other nations who develop nuclear power. This includes agreeing not to use that technology to develop nuclear weapons, the ...


4

Which I don't see why they wouldn't if the US doesn't hold their end of the deal. Two reasons. The United States might take additional actions. For example, Saudi Arabia has recommended that the US take military action against Iran. US sanctions don't prevent Iran from doing business with European countries in Euro-denominated transactions with ...


4

This works differently than trade agreements because it does not bind member states in the same way. The EU's role in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action stems from its sanctions regime. Sanctions like these are indeed adopted by the Council, following a specific review procedure and the Council also translated the results of the JPCOA into EU law. The ...


3

What you are referring to as the "type of agreement" the treaty is is mostly an internal matter for the vairous countries as to how they implement the agreement negotiated between the various parties. All the countries involved in JCPoA got together and agreed a set of measures they would all implement. How that set of measures is then enshired in each ...


3

Is Iran seeking a nuclear warhead? Maybe, yes, no; no one really knows. Does Iran need to violate Obama's agreement to obtain a nuclear warhead? I would assume it breaks the agreement. Remember it is not solely Obama's agreement, but an agreement between Iran and the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China, plus Germany and the ...


3

It is treated as an executive agreement, not as an Article II "treaty". Furthermore, it is a "sole executive agreement" instead of a "congressional-executive agreement" as Congressional action is not necessary for it to be implemented -- all the actions that the US needs to take under the deal are things that the President already has authority to do by ...


3

Leaving aside Iran (that another answer already covered), North Korea's motivation was discussed in detail in a recent Stratfor podcast and articles (e.g. here). Deterrence 2011 events in Libya (following 2003 renouncement of their nuclear program) showed that a nuclear program rejection does not protect the regime from attacks by the west (and, at least ...


3

How would the people in US, especially those who most like to pillory Iran for not being docile and compliant, react if a bunch of foreigners, led by Iranians, wanted to come into the US and, completely at their own whims, go to any facility, unannounced, to poke around and inspect them? The howls of outrage would be heard half way across the globe, which ...


3

In 2012, Iran significantly stepped up their nuclear enrichment program, and denied IAEA inspectors access to Iranian nuclear facilities. (Source). In response, the US and Europe stepped up economic sanctions against Iran and cut Iran off from the global banking system. The United States imposed an arms ban and an almost total economic embargo on Iran, which ...


3

The tangible benefit they have gained from sticking to the JCPOA has been the willingness of states other than the US to trade with them, and to skirt the edge of US sanctions. The political benefit they have gained has been to make the Trump Administration look (to the world outside the US) like the aggressor, creating a crisis for its own political ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible