FORGET NEW IRAN NUKE DEAL, REFORM INTEL COMMUNITY

News Max, Aug. 11, 2017 - Critics of the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), argue for withdrawal based mostly on issues peripheral to JCPOA.
For example, critics argue Iran has disappointed U.S. expectations that Iran would no longer support international terrorism or work to destabilize neighboring countries or threaten the United States.

While these were U.S. expectations, there is no legally binding language in the JCPOA requiring Iran to change its international behavior.
Critics of the JCPOA also argue for U.S. withdrawal because Iran continues to develop long-range ballistic missiles — which are militarily practicable only with nuclear warheads. Critics note such missile development violates the 'spirit' of the JCPOA.
Yet again, the JCPOA does not ban missile testing by Iran in any legally binding language.
Indeed, a better legal reason for withdrawing from the JCPOA than the arguments above is that the Iran nuclear deal is not legally binding at all. The JCPOA is not a treaty, but an executive agreement, never submitted to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent, and ratification, as constitutionally required.

Preventing Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism, from developing nuclear weapons is vital to U.S. and global security. Yet the JCPOA is not legally or instrumentally capable of stopping an Iranian atomic bomb.
Therefore, President Trump is obligated to terminate the fiction that is the Iran nuclear deal.
But the best argument for abandoning JCPOA is rarely made, that Iran is probably in material breach of the letter and main purpose of JCPOA because, like its ally North Korea, Iran has almost certainly developed nuclear weapons clandestinely.
source:FORGET NEW IRAN NUKE DEAL, REFORM INTEL COMMUNITY