You Can’t Have It Both Ways

Fox News is reporting today that there is an aspect of the Iranian nuclear deal that conflicts with existing law.

The article explains:

At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall…license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”

In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that theIran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.

Indeed, ITRA also stipulated, in Section 218, that when it comes to doing business with Iran, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent firms shall in all cases be treated exactly the same as U.S. firms: namely, what is prohibited for U.S. parent firms has to be prohibited for foreign subsidiaries, and what is allowed for foreign subsidiaries has to be allowed for U.S. parent firms.

The President does not have the authority to simply ignore the law and tell corporations to ignore the law. However, based on past experience, the law may not matter. One of the major problems with the Obama Administration is the ignoring of laws–the idea that President Obama can create any law he wants with ‘a pen and a phone.’ If Congress wants to be anything other than irrelevant, it is time for them to step up and act. Either the Iranian agreement is legal or it is not. Based on this news report, it is not.

Did You Know That Something Passed The Senate Last Week 100-0 ?

I hate to admit that blogging has contributed to some cynicism on my part, but it has. I am really not sure if you put the fact that today is Thursday up for a vote in the Senate you could get a 100-0 vote. Therefore, the fact that something was voted on unanimously totally got my attention.

On December 1, 2011, the Senate voted to add Amendment 1414 to S.1867 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ). According to Thomas.gov The purpose of the amendment is to require the imposition of sanctions with respect to the financial sector of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran.

Today’s Wall Street Journal (I am not linking to the article because it is subscribers only) asks why the Obama administration is working behind the scenes to neuter the sanctions that the Senate passed.

The Obama Administration has a few reasons–officials have stated that they fear that U. S. trading partners will stop trading with America and continue trading with Iran, thus hurting American businesses. The Treasury claims that the sanctions could destabilize the world oil market, creating windfall profits for Iran. The way the amendment is currently written, the sanctions would take effect after 60 days. The President would have to issue three waivers to block them before the 2012 election (and explain to the American public why he is doing so). The Treasury wants to change the bill so that the sanctions take effect after 180 days, so President Obama would only have to waive them once before the 2012 elections.

So what is this about? If the sanctions increase the price of gasoline at the pump (where almost all Americans feel it), it might endanger the chances of President Obama for re-election. This is ridiculous. What do you think Iran’s obtaining nuclear weapons will do for President Obama’s chances of re-election and for our national security?

Enhanced by Zemanta