INSTEX "made operational" - Trade between EU and Iran starts

The only thing that matters to us is the US constitution.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

Obama didn’t get the advice and consent of the 2/3 of the senators, making the agreement null and void in our eyes.

So, maybe in your shithole country a monarch or a dictator can make binding treaties, but here we have the rule of law that requires parliamentary approval before a president commits entire country to a deal.

 

Thanks for demonstrating your economic illiteracy.

 

It seems to be INSTEX that does the trick.

 

When the nuclear arms race begins in the Gulf with mushroom clougs to follow it will be these flaky euros and china who are to blame

 

The US had no treaty with iran

All there was was a handshake deal with obama

Who was not an absolute monarch

 

Seems rather alright when responding to "you need USDs to pay us for stuff that your shithole country"

 

It says... "The Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 is an American law, still in effect, designed to ensure that Congress would be informed about the international commitments made by executive agreements." And with that, Obama can bypass congress about it's international commitments = sign deals. It just needs to inform congress.

 

Obama doesn't need 2/3. There are 3 ways to make a treaty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

The body of law governing U.S. foreign policy recognizes three mechanisms by which the United States enters into binding international obligations. The term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and executive agreements.[1] All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. Distinctions among the three concern their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by the normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively.

 

Sure buddy. You just keep on lending money, buying stuff from abroad.

 

Article II. Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution :

The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur...

A handshake deal is not bonding unless approved by the American people via a 2/3 vote in the senate

 

You do understand that wikipedia is not official but merely someones personal opiniom

Or maybe you dont know

 

It's moderated so strict that it's no par with the best of encyclopedia's. According to the scientific paper called Nature, who looked into it. Your opinion is just merely a opinion... of an anonymous poster on an iffy forum whose moderators do not care how much somebody lies.

 

I guess not.

According to the news outlet, INSTEX is mainly intended at facilitating the trade of basic goods such as food and medical products, but not oil sales that are Iran’s lifeline and a main target of the sanctions.

https://financialtribune.com/articles/business-and-markets/98751/instex-worthless-without-oil-import

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2019/06/30/europe-circumvents-u-s-sanctions-on-iran/

Secondly, as the JCPOA statement indicated, the aim is to open INSTEX to third countries. China and Russia were both present at the meeting, and both have an interest in trading with Iran. Crucially, their trade could include oil. The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) observes that “the SPV is more likely to succeed if it links with revenues related to Iran’s oil exports to countries such as China, India, and Japan.”


INSTEX is a system that arranges that no money will be going across the border. An Iranian company sells something to the EU, and an other Iranian company buys something from the EU. The system is than used that the selling EU company is paid by the buying EU company while the Iranian company that buys is paying the Iranian company that sells. That way,.. goods are transported, but there is no money trace and so no way who is buying goods, like oil, when it's exported out of Iran, so no idea who to block the access to the US market. The INSTEX system is not new. There is also SWIFT (top of my head),... but that is based in the US.

We all know Iran earns it's money from selling oil in order to buy stuff. Without the sale of oil, the system is not worth having. Everybody knows that.

And the products you name, are the products that are not banned by the US to trade with Iran. It does not want Iran to starve to death... bla di bla... than again it demands it starves to death, since it wouldn't be able to buy it without selling something back. The US / Americans are genocidal... this is just like their oil for food program it had with Iraq. Child mortality went through the roof because of that. Half a million kids starved to death or by lack of medicine. Albright said in a life interview that it was worth it that so many children had to die. Proves it that Americans are genocidal. It's not as if she doesn't represents the American people.

 

So unless the EU buys oil it is basically worthless. That's all I wanted to know.
As to food for oil, I think Saddam owned that problem.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/iraq-oil-food-scandal

 

Yeah, right

Maybe they dont allow conservatives to answer but in any case the info is not peer reviewed

 

From your own link:

First of all, there was never a treaty between the Us and Iran, but rather executive agreement. As quoted from your own link - executive agreements are very short term and are very limited in scope. With Obama leaving office all of his executive agreements are subject to being reversed by the next administration. And that’s exactly what happened.
If Obama wanted this to stick he’d get the senate to make it a real treaty or at least get the Congress to approve to make it harder for next administration to reverse.

 

IAW, the handshake deal obama promised the euros was only good while he was in office

Thats the problem with foreigners

They dont understand America as much as they think they do

 

No, we understand quite well. As Macron and Merkel said, USA is not trustworthy.

 

Dont put ypur faith in despots who cant get senate approval for their schemes

 

The Paris climate contract was broken as well.

As Merkel and Macron said, USA is not trustworthy. There is a reason why under our new PESCO rules no american companies are allowed to engage in our defense contracts.

 

The Iran nuclear deal was agreed to by all permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and the resolution regarding the agreement was approved unanimously by all members of the Security Council with no abstentions. It is therefore binding. The US agreed to this principle in signing the U.N. charter.

 

Nope. The US was set to destroy Iraq. It is as simple as that. Nothing Iraq did was good enough for the US. The people investigating the WMD claims, and found nothing again and again, had to flee the country because the US/UK wanted to start the war. Among things the US managed with that oil for food deal, was that the country was unable to import generators for their sewage systems to function. That lead to dumping raw sewage in the rivers, the same rivers they use to drink. That's how they died by the 100.000's. The US's policies were genocidal and the US representative found it totally worth doing. The US and the UK are to blame for that. The blood is on their hands. It is so, because the US and UK lied that Iraq had WMD's, which we all know it aint true. Even the evidence is fake. There was simply nothing Iraq could have do to avoid it. That's why the blood is on the hands of the UK/US.

Do note. Your link shuns why people died. It only is about how Saddam was able to bribe some people to make some more money. This is not why people died. They died because the US/UK blocked what the people needed to survive.

 

This is the peer review of that page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States
changes made:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States&action=history

 

But Iran has always stated they have never been interested in building nuclear weapons. Yet you say Iran is going to start building nukes again?