Hacker News Reader

Comment by towledev | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Unilateraly on the level of countries. The other signatories (China, France, Russia, the U.K., Germany and the EU) believed that the deal was good and Iran was holding up their end of the bargain at that time.

If the USA government had credible evidence that it is not so, they could have picked up the phone and presented their case to the other signatories. Or at least to their allies. Then once those countries were convinced that something is off they could have withdrawn together from the agreement. Would have less of a terrible optics than how it went down.

I seek only to point out that we, the United States, have a constitutionally-outlined treaty-making process which involves Senate ratification, and that in the case of the JCPOA, the Senate did not ratify.

An accord reached between Iran and several world powers, including the United States, in July 2015.

Not Just Obama.

Can the world be saved from central north American partisan squabbling please.

It would be truer to say the agreement was between several world powers and Obama, as the Senate didn't ratify.

did the senate ratify starting a war with iran or president is ok to bomb with isreal at will but any agreement requires “ratification” by senate?!

Re starting wars, you’re preaching to the choir.

Re international agreements: yes, the idea is that _broad support_ is required for binding international agreements. Senate ratification represents broad support.

The JCPOA was written in pencil.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com