# Nuclear deal with Iran **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 14, 2015, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128 "2015-07-14T11:37:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 41
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/801 "2015-08-21T14:20:06Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > An executive order is entirely revocable, for example. But it is also enforceable in court. That is the point. It’s only enforceable (under some circumstances) until the President changes his or her mind. If I were party to such an “agreement”, I wouldn’t put much stock in it, would you? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/802 "2015-08-21T14:32:41Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > That is the point. It’s only enforceable (under some circumstances) until the President changes his or her mind. If I were party to such an “agreement”, I wouldn’t put much stock in it, would you? It depends on (1) the actual practical factors constraining the other side; and (2) whether an alternative form of agreement could be made more stable. A treaty can be overridden (or simply ignored) at any time too. It is only marginally more stable than an executive agreement. What keeps them in place has less to do with the difficulty of discarding them (see, e.g., Bush and the Geneva Conventions), and more to do with the political consequences regardless of the legal enforcement mechanisms. You seem to want to paint an executive agreement like it’s just some crazy uncle saying he might give you a nice car if you graduate college, whereas a treaty is like notarized contract with the consideration held in escrow. That characterization is totally missing the important historical, political, and legal context of such agreements. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/803 "2015-08-21T14:43:07Z")
Let’s assume that the President has the 34 votes needed to uphold his veto. What practical factors constrain the next President from overriding the agreement? Note, I do not buy the Administration’s argument that the only alternative to _this_ agreement is War. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/804 "2015-08-21T14:53:28Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > What practical factors constrain the next President from overriding the agreement? One obvious factor is a desire to see Iran comply. But I’m assuming you are positing that the next President believes no agreement is better than the current one. So another big factor is US credibility. The more often we back out of carefully negotiated international agreements, the less often people will negotiate with us. Note that these same factors apply equally to treaties which, again, can simply be overridden by passing a contradictory law. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/805 "2015-08-21T15:11:16Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > So another big factor is US credibility. The more often we back out of carefully negotiated international agreements, the less often people will negotiate with us. Do you really mean “carefully negotiated international agreements” that the majority of Americans, through their elected representatives, do not support? The agreement will not pass the House, and may not pass the Senate. Nevertheless, his veto will be upheld. Are we to believe that Obama knows best? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/806 "2015-08-21T15:13:31Z")
I don’t believe Obama knows best, I just believe he knows better than you. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/807 "2015-08-21T15:14:23Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Do you really mean “carefully negotiated international agreements” that the majority of Americans, through their elected representatives, do not support? > > The agreement will not pass the House, and may not pass the Senate. Nevertheless, his veto will be upheld. Are we to believe that Obama knows best? :dubious: In this particular case, I certainly do, at least compared to those who want to reject the deal. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/808 "2015-08-21T15:16:23Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Do you really mean “carefully negotiated international agreements” that the majority of Americans, through their elected representatives, do not support? > > The agreement will not pass the House, and may not pass the Senate. Nevertheless, his veto will be upheld. Are we to believe that Obama knows best? :dubious: This is a non-sequitur to our discussion. If you want my personal opinion, I believe most people in Congress are voting on the politics of the deal and not the policy of it. That’s why, for example, the key Senate hold-outs for the Dems just happen to be in NY and NJ. That has nothing to do with whether the deal is legally binding, or the hit that US credibility will take if the next President immediately abrogates it. ---
**Author:** ![Peanut\_Gallery](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/838e76/32.png) [@Peanut\_Gallery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut_Gallery)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/809 "2015-08-21T15:35:16Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Note, I do not buy the Administration’s argument that the only alternative to _this_ agreement is War. That’s what I want to hear. What are the other realistic alternatives that make Iran less likely to make progress toward a nuclear weapon? They have been lacking in this discussion so far. And not “what they should have done is…”, but “refuse this deal, and then \_\_\_” ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/810 "2015-08-21T15:36:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In this particular case, I certainly do, at least compared to those who want to reject the deal. Does that include Chuck Schumer, the putative Senate Majority Leader to be? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/811 "2015-08-21T15:37:52Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > That has nothing to do with whether the deal is legally binding, or the hit that US credibility will take if the next President immediately abrogates it. We could have a new President later today, God forbid, who could cancel the whole thing. That doesn’t meet the conventional definition of legally binding, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/812 "2015-08-21T15:42:14Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > We could have a new President later today, God forbid, who could cancel the whole thing. That doesn’t meet the conventional definition of legally binding, in my opinion. But your opinion is wrong. If your opinion were right, executive orders would also not be legally binding. Many forms of administrative regulations would also not be legally binding. No one believes that. They very clearly do have legal force. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/813 "2015-08-21T15:46:14Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Do you really mean “carefully negotiated international agreements” that the majority of Americans, through their elected representatives, do not support? > > The agreement will not pass the House, and may not pass the Senate. Nevertheless, his veto will be upheld. Are we to believe that Obama knows best? :dubious: Do I think Obama is smarter than Boehner? Gee, give me a few minutes to ponder that one. Meanwhile, you can ponder what those fucking Founding Fathers were thinking when they gave the President veto powers. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/814 "2015-08-21T15:48:03Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > But your opinion is wrong. If your opinion were right, executive orders would also not be legally binding. Many forms of administrative regulations would also not be legally binding. No one believes that. They very clearly do have legal force. If something can be changed by the whim of one person, it’s not binding, in any rational sense of the word. Likewise with agreements, which require two (or more) parties. If one party can change it at will, it cannot be considered a true agreement. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/815 "2015-08-21T15:50:30Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Meanwhile, you can ponder what those fucking Founding Fathers were thinking when they gave the President veto powers. They certainly were not thinking “The President knows best, especially when he’s of my party” which is what is going on here. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/816 "2015-08-21T15:57:14Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > If something can be changed by the whim of one person, it’s not binding, in any rational sense of the word. That’s not what binding means. A will is legally binding even as to the drafter, for example, even though a will can be unilaterally revoked. Binding simply means that one or more parties is obligated to follow it until it has been validly changed. I think what you’re trying to argue is that an executive agreement is less stable than a treaty because it is marginally easier to abrogate. That’s true. Just like a statute is less stable than a constitutional amendment, for similar reasons (it takes the agreement of more actors). But it’s not some kind of binary thing. And you have to be careful not to overstate the stability of treaties. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/817 "2015-08-21T16:03:42Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I think what you’re trying to argue is that an executive agreement is less stable than a treaty because it is marginally easier to abrogate. That’s true. That, and also that it’s not a treaty because he feared he couldn’t get the votes to ratify. Another end-run around Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/818 "2015-08-21T16:06:17Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > That, and also that it’s not a treaty because he feared he couldn’t get the votes to ratify. Another end-run around Congress. It’s a perfectly valid criticism to say that you’d prefer this type of agreement get the approval of Congress. I am skeptical, however, that your criticism is about executive power and not just partisan dislike for Obama. Do you feel the same way about Reagan’s executive agreements, for example? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/819 "2015-08-21T16:24:13Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Does that include Chuck Schumer, the putative Senate Majority Leader to be? Absolutely. On this issue, Schumer is wrong and Obama is right. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/820 "2015-08-21T16:29:59Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Do you feel the same way about Reagan’s executive agreements, for example? Yes, 100%. Modern Presidents have usurped too much power from the People. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128.md?page=40) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128.md?page=42)