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

Wonder why it was called a "deal" instead of a "treaty" then?

 

That's a no, since I sourced and quoted:
All three classes are considered treaties under international law

 

The UN has no ability to bind the US to anything.

Go ahead, send the blue helmets at us.

 

That's a no, since I sourced and quoted:
All three classes are considered treaties under international law

 

Iran has stated they are now disregarding the nuclear agreement and producing more uranium. By lifting sanctions it will only provide Iran more money to produce more uranium. INSTEX will be helping Iran get a nuclear weapon.

 

Because the US currency is the reserve currency that is required by all countries to use to buy oil. Try purchasing oil via the EC and see what happens. Saddam tried using another currency and look what happened to him.

 

Seems REALLY obvious that it's good for the EU to not use a foreign currency to make their purchases with a country that also doesn't use the US dollar nationally.

I doubt the US would attack the EU.

 

Sure.

That's why it was called the Iran Deal.

 

We bound ourselves to it in 1945. What ... do you want Trump to renege on that, too?

 

I guess your One World Government will have to wait.

 

So long as the US currency is the world's reserve currency the US doesn't need to attack the EU. Financial pressure is already proving useful in preventing the EU from going around US sanctions against Iran. The EU does more business with the US and it's allies than they do with Iran so why risk losing that business?

 

Indeed... I sourced it, so you know. What do you got to dispute this? Your opinion as an anonymous poster on an iffy forum? lol

 

What are you going on about? We signed the U.N. charter. In 1945. When we owned the works, politically speaking.

Truman was a globalist?

 

It's usually not a good idea to cave into blackmail. That is why many countries are looking for a new currency. When that happens the US will be in a world of hurt.

 

Not in the US. For a treaty to become a federal law it must be approved by 2/3 of the senate.

 

Hence in the interest of the EU, means it's a good thing for them to have a system to not use the US$ for the oil. And the EU set up INSTEX to go around US sanctions. So I dunno where you see this preventing thing now.

 

I don't know why Saddam invaded Kuwait, but your right the US may have over reacted.

 

The USD is stable and reliable NOT because it’s a reserve currency. It’s a reserve currency because it’s stable and reliable and because the USD is in high demand.
The difference is huge.

 

And if it was that easy to change the reserve currency I'm sure it would have already happened. You have no idea what will happen to the world economy if the US reserve is suddenly removed as the world's reserve currency.

 

It's still an international treaty.

 

INSTEX helps Iran to get food and medicine.

We will not allow you to do to Iran what you did to Iraq.

 

That's neither here nor there in this case as this is not a treaty.

 

The USD is not that reliable. Trump lowered his taxes, and the lack of income is being covered by massive amounts of lending money. So that looks iffy. And China, EU and Russia have been dumping the buck on a massive scale. And I wouldn't know why the EU should put it's trust in the Dollar, and not in their own currency. China and Russia are interested in the Euro not for the luls of it.

https://www.rt.com/business/448441-russia-reserves-dollar-dump/
https://qz.com/1180434/europes-cent...ace-us-dollar-reserves-with-the-chinese-yuan/
https://www.ft.com/content/0933cdfa-7766-11e9-be7d-6d846537acab

 

It's far more than just that. The trade of food and medicine are goods that aren't blocked by the US.

 

It is an international treaty for those countries that signed and ratified it, but definitely not to the US.
Your own quotes prove that for any treaty to become federal law you need 2/3 of the senate. Executive agreement is not binding. Obama’s signature is equivalent of him stating that he was present there during the signing process.

Again, maybe in your shithole country your monarch or dictator can sign binding treaties, but in the US our president cannot. Giving him that ability would mean that we give the executive branch of government the ability to legislate via international treaties. We have checks and balances. Whatever president signs must be ratified, plain and simple, otherwise the signature carries almost no weight.