Is this even newsworthy? The mullahs have been cheating and double-dealing their way through these circle-jerking "negotiations" for the past twelve years and have no evident intention of suddenly committing themselves to Barack Obama's complete capitulation based upon that perfidious track record. I'm not sure what the term "legally binding" would even mean to them.
But the "moderate" and "reasonable" "President" Rouhani has told them on behalf of "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenie that they don't have to bother with it:
President Hassan Rouhani said Saturday he opposes a parliamentary vote on the landmark nuclear deal reached with world powers because terms of the agreement would turn into legal obligations if passed by lawmakers.
Rouhani told a news conference that the deal was a political understanding reached with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, not a pact requiring parliamentary approval. The deal also says Iran would....
....implement the terms voluntarily, he said. …
“If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,” Rouhani said. “Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?” [emphases added]
What is this? Monkey see, monkey do? I can't fathom for what audience Rouhani's kabuki theater is intended. It can't be the Iranian people, since they're irrelevant and have no voice or say in the matter. It can't be the American people, who are already thoroughly rejecting the "deal" (and, really, are just as irrelevant as their - our - Iranian counterparts). And it surely can't be the U.S. Congress, for which I would think the mullahs wouldn't want to set the example of effectively voting down the "deal" or confirming that it isn't a "treaty" but just a "political understanding" and "not a pact". But then again, with thirty-one "yes" votes confirmed and in the bank with more doubtless on the way, it's not as if Senate Democrats need much encouragement in that direction.
And yet the Iranian theatrics bafflingly continue:
Indeed, the successful conclusion of the nuclear talks has led to the development of a new pragmatism in Iran, personified by prominent decision-makers who have more sober and practical views on foreign and domestic policy. This phenomenon has seen the joining of political figures who hail from historically opposing camps, namely the moderate Rouhani and the principalist speaker of parliament, Ali Larijani. This heretofore unseen alliance is a significant development in Iran’s political landscape and has positioned pragmatism as a palpable political force in Iran.
What should be of chief importance to Western policymakers is that the prospect for a more cooperative Iran rests with them reciprocating Iran’s pragmatic outreach proportionately. For their efforts thus far, the pragmatists, led by the president and the speaker, have garnered vociferous criticism from hard-liners, who accuse them of having given far too many concessions on the nuclear program. If there was nothing to show for these concessions, pragmatism would be marginalized and Iran would be forced to retract from its "commitments". Thus, durable sanctions relief is critical to ensuring a more amicable Iran. …
Congress’s overriding the deal would surely lead to radicalism once again at the expense of pragmatism in Iran. Moreover, the nuclear deal has the potential for far-reaching positive implications for the volatile Middle East region and for Iran’s relations with the West. [emphases added]
In other words, if Congress doesn't rubber-stamp this "deal" that gifts nuclear weapons to the Iranian mullahgarchy with which they will incinerate Israel, Europe, and the United States at the earliest opportunity, the mullahs might become "radicals" who might grow less "amicable to the West". Because "pragmatism" is defined as leading daily bellowing chants of "DEATH TO AMERICA! DEATH TO ISRAEL!" and waging a terrorist war against both for the past thirty-six years. And if we do not now provide this enemy with the means of our destruction, they may REALLY get bad.
Who is Tehran trying to fool with this nonsense? The only remotely plausible audience is wavering Democrats, but congressional aquiescence or lack of it isn't relevant to how the mullahs will proceed with their nuclear weapons buildup any more than the "negotiations" and "interim agreements" have been. Even "for this history books" doesn't make sense because it's the winners that write them, and Iran surely looks like it's going to be on the winning side of this clash of civilizations. I don't get it.
Any intelligent suggestions? Leave 'em in the comments. I'll be all ears.