Monday, May 29th | 4 Sivan 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
July 29, 2015 7:21 pm

Under Nuclear Deal, Iran’s Obligations Are Voluntary

avatar by Mort Klein & Liz Berney

Email a copy of "Under Nuclear Deal, Iran’s Obligations Are Voluntary" to a friend
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Virtually every treaty and agreement contains language that clearly binds the parties to definitive, explicitly agreed-to terms. However, the Iran deal — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — is different. In the JCPOA, supposed obligations are merely called “voluntary measures.”

It is frightening that, in addition to failing to dismantle Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons; failing to end Iran’s worldwide support for terrorist attacks on Americans, Jews and others; and giving Iran sanctions relief and economic windfalls now estimated to reach $700 billion, which will drastically intensify Iran’s worldwide terror operations, the JCPOA appears to be written in such a way as to avoid imposing any real, binding, enforceable obligations on the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Right at the outset, the introduction to the Iran deal’s nuclear provisions calls the deal’s provisions “voluntary measures.” At the end of the JCPOA’s introductory Preamble and General Provisions, the JCPOA’s nuclear provisions are introduced with the following opening phrase:

Related coverage

May 28, 2017 12:58 pm
0

New York Times Unleashes Onslaught of Five Op-Eds Hostile to Israel

When the New York Times opinion page hired Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss, two outspoken Zionist veterans of the Wall...

“Iran and E3/EU-3 will take the following voluntary measures within the time frame as detailed in this JCPOA and its annexes.”

The phrase “voluntary measures” is also repeated elsewhere in the JCPOA.

The JCPOA’s key nuclear monitoring provisions and general provisions are called “voluntary measures” and “voluntary nuclear-related measures” — not obligations.

The JCPOA’s Nuclear Section C, titled “Transparency and Confidence Building Measures,” paragraph 15 states: “Iran will allow the IAEA to monitor the implementation of the voluntary measures for their respective duration.”

Similarly, the JCPOA’s Preamble and General Provisions paragraph x states: “The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be requested to monitor and verify the voluntary nuclear-related measures as detailed in this JCPOA.”

The JCPOA also uses the terms Iran’s “intention” and “plan” and “Iran’s own plan” and “voluntary commitments” in other key paragraphs. “Intentions” and “plans” and “voluntary commitments” do not have the force of binding agreements.

The very title of the deal, “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” merely indicates a plan — not a binding agreement.

And, for instance, key JCPOA Nuclear Section B, titled “Arak, Heavy Water, Reprocessing,” paragraph 11, merely states that “Iran intends to ship out all spent fuel for all future and present power and research nuclear reactors.”

JCPOA Section I (titled “Other Aspects of Enrichment”), paragraph 52, states: “Iran will abide by its voluntary commitments as expressed in its own long term enrichment and enrichment R&D plan to be submitted. . . .”

Similarly, critical provisions in the JCPOA’s Nuclear Section A, titled “Enrichment, Enrichment R&D, Stockpiles,” paragraph 1, refer to Iran’s “voluntary commitments, as expressed in its own long-term enrichment and enrichment R&D plan to be submitted.”

The JCPOA also limits the purpose of the JCPOA’s “measures.” The JCPOA’s Preamble and General Provisions, paragraph xi, provides: “All provisions and measures contained in this JCPOA are only for the purpose of its implementation between E3/EU+3 and Iran.”

In other words, countries other than the P5+1 (the U.S., Russia, China, France, England and Germany) will have no right to insist that Iran must abide by any provisions of the JCPOA. And the phrase “only for the purpose of implementation” suggests that the P5+1 will be severely limited in what they can insist upon.

Given Iran’s long history of violating its binding international nonproliferation obligations and its other international obligations, there is little doubt that Iran will readily avoid the “voluntary measures” in the JCPOA.

We must also ask, does the West gain any new legal rights from Iran’s “voluntary measures” set forth in the JCPOA? Under pre-existing binding international documents, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — a treaty that Iran signed and ratified and has violated for decades — Iran is legally obligated to submit to IAEA safeguards on fissionable material and processing equipment, and cannot legally acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons. It seems that the JCPOA imposes no new binding legal obligations on Iran — while granting Iran an immense windfall.

Even worse, as Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) opined at the July 22 congressional hearing on Iran, the JCPOA will in the long run make it more difficult for the West to require Iran to meet its existing NPT obligations, because the JCPOA “make[s] it much harder to demonstrate that Iran’s nuclear program [including Iran’s advanced centrifuges and enrichment program] is not in fact being used for peaceful purposes.” Thus, the JCPOA ultimately undermines Iran’s existing legal obligations.

Morton Klein is president of the Zionist Organization of America. Elizabeth Berney, Esq. is ZOA’s director of special projects. This article was originally published by Israel Hayom.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • KENNETH C WILLIAMS

    THANK YOU MORT & LIZ. 🙂

  • Mike Schwarzer

    If propaganda was an odour this would be a rotten fish.

    Benny faces a difficult problem, he’s caught in a big lie and nobody is going along with it except those who have been freightened into submission. He will be the ruin of Israel.

    On the plus side we will really see who is compromised in the US politic, to protect the democracy this infiltration must be purged no different than the communists.

    This is the right argument to sift the wheat from the chaff, since the ‘No’ argument is so very unsupportable that all you can conclude the senators are bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby, or they are confused as to which government they serve, or they lack the intellectual capacity to understand the deal. Not congressional or presidential material.

    To protect the democracy these people need to be purged next election. This is not an issue of pro verses anti Israel, us against them nonsense, it is an issue of US Political integrity which is under treat by a foreign government. It is about a NPT deal that is good for Israel and the world that Benny is misrepresenting. Another BUSH WMD BS story, now BENNY WMD BS. It’s just another warmonger story used to pick a fight.

    There is plenty of time for war, trying to normalize and find peace with Iran is a worthy cause. Too bad Benny continues with his fake arguments instead of doing his job and looking for opportunity in the changing political landscape.

    Only an idiot fights a battle he already lost, for unsupportable reasons and burns his freinds while doing it.

  • Red

    The west is desperate for new sources of revenue ( selling equipment and infrastructure)
    Iran is one of two the most mature/smart/accomplished middle eastern country
    Lets hope that bringing economicsl benefits will make iran more constructive and looking for a peaceful interaction with the neighbours.

    The west cant play trojan with Iran as they are very careful and do not trust

  • Elle

    Some one better bring up Kerry’s double talk

    On one hand he claims that senctions did not

    Stop Iran from going forward with its nuclear

    Program.

    On the other hand he will slap senctions on Iran

    If they cheat THAT MAKES NO SENSE

    if it didn’t work in the first place why go at it again???

Algemeiner.com