One of the issues doing the rounds over the last couple of days, is that the US Congress will have to approve the deal before it can be ratified.

Obviously living at the end of the world (NZ) I missed something, I was under the impression that the talks were under the auspices of the UN and any agreement would go back to the security council or the general council for approval.

Individual countries may choose not to ratify the deal and could continue with their own sanctions, others may accept the deal and stand by the approval of the UN.

The tone of the statements by US officials seem to contradict this and gives the US total sanction of the deal via the US Congress.

Having lived in the US over past few years and seen the working of the US Congress God help us, the whole world would be at the mercy of right wing war mongers, who now control both houses of Congress.

Anybody out there with a better understanding of the procedure for ratification of any deal and give me peace of mind.

cjh
Tauranga
NZ

What's being brokered is an agreement and not a treaty and as such doesn't need to be ratified by Congress or any Govt - just the approval of the relevant world leaders (including Iran's). Once that has been done then the agreement would be sent to the UN to be codified in a Security Council Resolution.

However, it was felt in the US that, given their suspicion of all things related to Iran, any agreement needed approval of Congress, so a Bill was introduced (the 'Iran Nuclear Deal Review Act') which gave them the authority to approve or reject any deal with Iran. Also, another Bill was introduced which prohibited POTUS from lifting any congressional sanctions against Iran for 60 days while Congress reviewed the agreement. Obama wasn't happy with these Bills and threatened to veto them, but was unable to do so. Given that Congress is primarily Republican, it is more than likely that they will reject the agreement and that Obama will struggle veto that (all that is needed is 12 or more Democrats to vote against the agreement).

So although the agreement wouldn't necessarily need the approval of the US Congress, if they rejected it there wouldn't be a snowball's chance in Hell of being codified by the permanent members of the UN Security Council because the US would veto it.

That's how I understand it, anyway.

Thanks for the clarification, however it still bothers me that the crackheads in the US Congress are in a position to dictate to the rest of the world their version of foreign policy. Basically they are the same people who started the current Iraq and Afghanistan wars, both of which can only be described as total disasters.

cjh

Basically they are the same people who started the current Iraq and Afghanistan wars, both of which can only be described as total disasters.

cjh

I'm sure the CEO of Halliburton would disagree with you on that.

Booooooom.

Booooooom.

Tel Aviv or Tehran?

Well, one of those countries has the bomb: the other one hasn't...