Iran promises never to seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons

“Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.”

Read the proposed US-Iran nuclear deal yourself. 159 pages.

PREFACE

The E3/EU+3 (China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and the Islamic Republic of Iran welcome this historic Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which will ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful, and mark a fundamental shift in their approach to this issue. They anticipate that full implementation of this JCPOA will positively contribute to regional and international peace and security. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons. Iran envisions that this JCPOA will allow it to move forward with an exclusively peaceful, indigenous nuclear programme, in line with scientific and economic
considerations, in accordance with the JCPOA, and with a view to building confidence and encouraging international cooperation.

Read the entire document:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-text.html

Share
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

,

3 Responses to “Iran promises never to seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons”

  1. John Fran
    July 23, 2015 at 7:08 pm #

    Ms. Attkisson,

    Unfortunately, the referenced statement is found in the preamble and not in the body of the document.

    “131. The preamble of an international agreement sets out the context in which the agreement was negotiated and concluded. Under general rules of treaty interpretation the preamble is not considered to be part of the legally binding or “operative” text of the agreement. Instead the preamble forms part of the “context” in which the agreement’s obligations must be interpreted. It often recalls and refers to any related international agreements that may have provided the mandate for the negotiations or that the negotiators felt were in other ways relevant to the agreement. In practice, negotiators will also often include in the preamble references to principles or concepts that are relevant to the international agreement, but that proved too controversial to be included as binding obligations in the operative text.”
    https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/html/eplp046-explanatory_guide/preamble.html

    While it is nice that “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons,” because that statement is in the preamble to the Iran nuclear agreement (JCPAO), it is not a binding obligation on Iran’s part, but rather a statement of the context in which the agreement was negotiated.

  2. John Frank
    July 23, 2015 at 7:10 pm #

    Hello,

    In the comment I just posted, which is awaiting moderation, my name (which is a pen name) should read John Frank, not John Fran. I would be most grateful if you would correct the post, before it is finally posted.

    Thank you.

  3. John Frank
    September 10, 2015 at 2:41 am #

    Dear Ms. Attkisson,

    Further to my earlier posts, I am obliged to point out that:

    (i) the document you posted as being the text of the Iran nuclear deal, is not in fact the text of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as presented by the office of the EU High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs to the public, nor the text of the JCPOA as presented to the IAEA;

    (ii) the document you posted does not include all of the applicable and related documents, including United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 and the annexes, the Road Map Agreement between the IAEA and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the agreement between the IAEA and the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the inspection of the Parchin military site, which has been withheld from Congress, and the various side letters issued by the President to the leaders of China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom that according to reports promise that if the sanctions are “snapped back,” and U.S. Sanctions reinstated, the sanctions would not apply to existing commercial deals.

    (iii) the White House has refused to release to the public the documents that it claims make up the Iran nuclear agreement as defined in the Iran Nuclear Review Agreement Act of 2015, but instead classified them as secret, even though a number of the documents are in the public domain.

    (iv) by refusing or failing to disclose to Congress the text of the Inspection Agreement, which according to reports coming out of Iran has yet to be settled, within the time frame required under the Iran Review Agreement Act of 2015, the President is not in compliance, yet apparently Republican Congressional leaders and many Senate Democrats do not care.

    (v) Iran’s Supreme Leader has said that if the sanctions are merely suspended and not lifted, he will not honor the agreement, despite the fact the sanctions are not fully lifted until at least ten years, and possibly fifteen years from now.

    Frankly I am surprised that members of the media have not been howling about the failure of the White House to post all the documents which the Executive claims represent the Iran nuclear “deal” (it should have been treated as a treaty) on the White House website. There is no reason for any of the applicable documents to be classified and withheld from the public.

    A bit of background. Almost immediately after we learned on July 14 that terms had been reached, the Russian Foreign Ministry posted the complete text of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with the annexes (JCPOA).

    Document posted on the Facebook page of the Russian Foreign Ministry on July 14,
    https://www.facebook.com/MIDRussia/posts/657563194343125

    That posting contains a link to the Foreign Ministry Website, with zipped files containing the complete text, along with all of the annexes.

    In turn the document was quickly circulated in the media;
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/full-text-of-deal-from-russian-foreign-ministry/

    (This is the document that you posted.)

    However, on the same day, the office of the High Commissioner of Foreign Affairs for the European Union posted a different version on their website:
    http://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/2015/150714_iran_nuclear_deal_en.htm

    It is also not the same as the one submitted to the IAEA by the parties on July 24
    https://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/infcircs/communication-dated-24-july-2015-received-china-france-germany-russian-federation-united-kingdom-united-states-america-e3/eu3-and-islamic-republic-iran-concerning-text-joint-comprehensive-plan-action-jcpoa

    So, the question becomes which version of the JCPOA was submitted to Congress under the letter of transmittal pursuant to the provisions of the Iran Nuclear Review Agreement Act of 2015 on July 19?

    Iran Nuclear Review Agreement Act of 2015
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1191/text/pl

    Although I stand corrected, my understanding is that the Russian version of the JCPOA includes certain provisions dealing with ballistic missiles and weapons transfers, along with a number of important annexes. These were removed from the provisions in the EU and IAEA version, but included in UNSCR 2231.

    United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2231
    http://www.un.org/en/sc/inc/pages/pdf/pow/RES2231E.pdf

    The significance is that if Iran violates UNSCR 2231 especially as that relates to its ballistic missile program, or weapons transfers, Iran can take the position it will not be in violation of the JCPOA.

    Critical Points To Consider In Understanding The Iranian Nuclear Deal: Part III
    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8712.htm

    In addition to the JCPOA and UNSCR 2231, there are two more documents.

    The first is what is called the Road Map Agreement between the IAEA and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This was signed on July 14 and posted on the IAEA website:

    IAEA Director General’s Statement and Road-map for the Clarification of Past & Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran’s Nuclear Program
    https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-director-generals-statement-and-road-map-clarification-past-present-outstanding-issues-regarding-irans-nuclear-program

    However, for some reason Congress had to make a fuss about this document.

    The next is referenced in paragraph 5 of the Road Map Agreement and is the agreement between the IAEA and the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the inspection of the Parchin Military Site.

    The President has failed or refused to provide Congress with the text of that agreement. We know from an AP report that the agreement calls for Iranian officials to carry out the soil inspections at the Parchin Military site (“Inspection Agreement”).

    These two documents are a crucial part of the “deal,” yet …

    In fact, earlier today we learned, according to a series of tweets posted by Amir Taheri that:

    Head of Iran Atomic Energy Agency Salehi confirms there is “sensitive document” kept secret,not presented to US Congress or Islamic Majlis
    https://twitter.com/AmirTaheri4/status/641601275281436672

    Also read this tweet by Amir Taheri:

    National Security Council head Shamkhani: The 4th “sensitive text”t not presented to Majlis or US Congress because it is still being drafted
    https://twitter.com/AmirTaheri4/status/641603036725571584

    We have also learned according to a statement issued by Senator Marco Rubio that the President issued a series of side letters to the leaders of China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom confirming that if U.S. sanctions are reimposed under the purported “snap back provisions,” the sanctions will not apply to pre-existing commercial agreements. (There may also be a side letter to the President of Iran, and to the EU High Commissioner on Foreign Affairs confirming the same, although that is unclear.) Senator Marco Rubio called for these documents, which apparently are classified, to be released to the public, yet that has not happened.

    So, the questions become:

    What documents constitute the Iran nuclear agreement as defined in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015?

    Why are not all of the documents which are already in the public domain, posted on the White House website?

    Did the President transmit the complete Iran Nuclear Agreement as defined in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, even though he has failed or refused to transmit the Inspection Agreement?

    If the President failed or refused to comply with his obligations, how can time start to run for Congress to conduct its review and hold a vote?

    Why is the Republican Congressional leadership willing to hold a vote without members of Congress having seen all of the relevant documents?

    Why is the Democratic Congressional leadership willing to hold a vote without members of Congress having seen all of the relevant documents?

    Why is Congress apparently unwilling to require the President follow the law as set out in the Iran Nuclear Review Agreement Act of 2015?

    If the President has not submitted all of the documents as called for under the Act, how can time run and how can Congress hold any vote?

    Oh, one other observation. The President has gone out of his way to persuade enough Senators (Democrats and Independent who caucus with the Democrats) to vote to approve, such that the cloture motion to end debate on the resolution to disapprove will not be voted on by Congress.

    However, after it was announced that the President had secured enough votes to ensure that his veto would not be overridden, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei told a meeting of Iran’s Assembly of Experts that he wanted Iran’s Parliament to hold a vote on the agreement, over the objections of President Rouhani, who was opposed to Iran’s Parliament holding a vote. During the course of his remarks he made it clear that he was not telling the members of Iran’s Parliament how to vote. In the same meeting, he also said that if the U.S. sanctions were merely suspended and not lifted, that Iran will not honor the agreement:

    Khamenei Declares That He Will Not Honor The Agreement If Sanctions Are Merely Suspended And Not Lifted
    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8741.htm

    Also watch the following video:

    Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei: The Americans Must Lift the Sanctions, Not Suspend Them
    http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5067.htm

    The ink is not even dry on what amounts to a series of voluntary political commitments and the Iranians are already backing away.

    Why is the Republican leadership going along with the President’s plan to not only treat the American public like mushrooms, but also allowing him to withhold a crucial document from Congress in violation of the law? Why are Congressional leaders unwilling to follow the law and hold the President accountable? What is really going on?

    Oh yes, as to whether Congress should have treated the Iran nuclear “deal” as a treaty, you may find the following informative:

    Treaties and other international agreements : the role of the United States Senate : a study / prepared for the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. (2001)
    http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011338660

    It is a pity that Senators did not read this study as they were deliberating how to respond to the President’s position that he was going to by-pass Congress. The study notes among other things that:

    “The State Department has developed the following criteria for determining whether an agreement should be a treaty:
    (1) The degree of commitment or risk for the entire Nation;
    (2) Whether the agreement is intended to affect state laws;
    (3) Whether the agreement requires enabling legislation;
    (4) Past U.S. practice;
    (5) The preference of Congress;
    (6) The degree of formality desired;
    (7) The proposed duration and the need for prompt conclusion; and
    (8) General international practice on similar agreements.”

    Also, we learn from that study:

    “Nuclear, fisheries, and social security agreements are among those required by law to lie before Congress for specified time periods before they can enter into force. During this period, Congress can pass legislation disapproving the agreements, often with expedited procedures.”

    Treaties and other international agreements : the role of the United States Senate : a study / prepared for the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress (1993)
    http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007608914

    (This is an earlier supplanted, which has been replaced by the newer report. I include the reference for the sake of completeness.)

    Int’l Legal Research Tutorial
    https://law.duke.edu/ilrt/treaties_3.htm

    (A helpful outline.)