by JOEL GEHRKE, November 24, 2015

President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review. “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.

Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms. “The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose — and ramp up — our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments,” Frifield wrote to Pompeo.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani discouraged his nation’s parliament from voting on the nuclear deal in order to avoid placing legal burdens on the regime. “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to [and passed by] parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,” Rouhani said in August. “Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”
snip
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/42...-binding-signed


This from Allahpundit:
So we’re lifting $100 billion in sanctions in exchange for a legally binding promise of … nothing. The flip side of that, I guess, is that the deal’s not binding on us either; if the next president or even Obama himself wants to reimpose sanctions on a whim, that’s fair game. The problem with that logic, though, is that no one believes our European partners, who crave renewed access to Iran’s markets (and vice versa), will reinstate sanctions unless Iran cheats flagrantly and egregiously on the deal, to the point where it would humiliate the EU internationally to look the other way. One of Iran’s core goals in all this, re-opening its trade relationship with Europe, will be achieved whether or not the deal is binding. And once achieved, it’ll be nearly irreversible.
snip
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/25/oh...egally-binding/

The Iran Nuclear Deal Just Keeps Getting Worse

Although Adoption Day was intended to be an indication that the Iran deal is progressing, it has been overshadowed by growing signs that Iran intends to ignore important aspects of the deal and that the Obama administration is planning to look the other way.

President Obama refused to follow the Constitution and allow the Senate to ratify the JCPOA as a treaty. This was not the case for Iran’s parliament. Although the agreement only required the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) to ratify the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (an agreement that in theory will give IAEA inspectors greater access to Iranian nuclear sites), Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei gave parliament the opportunity to ratify the entire JCPOA. According to Obama officials and most press reports, the Iranian parliament passed a bill endorsing the nuclear deal on October 13.

These reports were wrong. The Majlis did not endorse the JCPOA. It approved its own amended version of the agreement that is drastically different, substantially limits Iran’s cooperation, and demands additional concessions.

snip

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/42...rse-fred-fleitz