I have begun my researches and read Professor Alan Dershowitz' commentary on JCPOA. Then I read this:
"The very title of the deal, “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” merely indicates a plan — not a binding agreement"
"...the JCPOA appears to be written in such a way as to avoid imposing any real, binding, enforceable obligations on the Islamic Republic of Iran."
"The very title of the deal, “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” merely indicates a plan — not a binding agreement"
I got nauseous. It is true, the title doesn't even sound like it is the title of a deal, we all tend to shorthand this thing to "Iran deal," it doesn't say it's a "deal." How more squishy can you get than a "plan of action?" Remember the title of the interim thing, "Parameters?" I recognized that as a non-deal. JCPOA has been sold as an agreement or a deal, IS IT? If I sell my house the transfer document isn't titled a "Plan of Action," who would sign such a thing?, it's titled a "contract." That's binding! Is there any other international treaty or like binding agreement that is titled a "Plan of Action?" Maybe, I don't know. Professor Dershowitz, who couldn't sleep all night when JCPOA was announced, does not say that JCPOA is non-binding. This site goes on to claim that
This is one hundred nine (109) pages of WHAT, EXACTLY?
