Secretary of State John Kerry has announced, in response to the Rub-publican letter to Iran, that the "deal" the administration is negotiating with Iran is not legally binding.
"We've been clear from the beginning: We're not negotiating a, quote, legally binding plan," Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "We're negotiating a plan that will have in it the capacity for enforcement. We don't even have diplomatic relations with Iran right now."
"Not legally binding." If that is true, what exactly are they doing? Why even bother? Or is it simple posturing--posturing over a very serious question of Iranian nuclear weaponry? And, if so, what was the meaning of the Senate Rub-publican letter and was it such a big deal?
"We've been clear from the beginning: We're not negotiating a, quote, legally binding plan," Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "We're negotiating a plan that will have in it the capacity for enforcement. We don't even have diplomatic relations with Iran right now."
"Not legally binding." If that is true, what exactly are they doing? Why even bother? Or is it simple posturing--posturing over a very serious question of Iranian nuclear weaponry? And, if so, what was the meaning of the Senate Rub-publican letter and was it such a big deal?
No comments:
Post a Comment