The Iran Deal’s “Exit Ramp” Provision – The Termination Clause – Full Text pdf Included…

What this article outlines is, in fact, the termination clause within the Iranian nuclear deal. A full analysis shows how the language used to craft the deal gives Iran the easy out, ‘the-exit-ramp’ as soon as the sanctions are lifted.

Obama - KaboomWASHINGTON DC – Last Tuesday, a 159-page PDF of the Iran nuclear agreement dropped into my inbox. Scrolling down to page 19, I checked out Paragraph 36. I suggest you do the same.

Plenty of provisions in the Vienna agreement will get attention in the coming weeks, but Paragraph 36 may be the most important of all.

Paragraph 36 tells us when and how the agreement might end. Both friend and foe have touted this deal as “historic” and promised (or moaned) that its provisions will stay in place for the long term. But in practice, this is not a ten-year agreement or a fifteen-year agreement or an eternal agreement. Paragraph 36 tells us the truth: Any party—be it Iran or a future U.S. president—can essentially ditch the Iran nuclear deal with 35 days’ notice.

Iran might need to wait a little longer—an extra 30 working days—to check a box buried in Annex IV. But, after that, under Paragraph 36, Iran can claim that any of the P5+1 is “not meeting its commitments” under the agreement. That triggers a 35-day set of meetings. Once that clock runs, Iran can claim the issue “has not been resolved to [its] satisfaction” and that it “deems” that the issue “constitutes significant non-performance.” Iran can then “cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.” The agreement is done.

Once Iran has received its $150 billion and locked in long-term business contracts with the West, this quick exit could be an attractive option. So, too, could Iran bolt later on, removing the restrictions that remain after years ten and fifteen, or it could bolt under some scenario hard to foresee now.

[…] For lawyers, Paragraph 36 packs other goodies. Scroll down in your PDF, and you’ll find an imaginary creature, the “Advisory Board.” The agreement provides for a non-binding, arbitration-style “Advisory Board,” a laudable idea. But how is the panel’s third member picked? The drafters don’t tell us. So the Advisory Board might never be able to convene.

That, by the way, shortens the exit period to 30 days. Read Paragraph 36 to understand why (read more)

This entry was posted in Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Dem Hypocrisy, Iran, Islam, Israel, media bias, Notorious Liars, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Secretary of State, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, United Nations, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to The Iran Deal’s “Exit Ramp” Provision – The Termination Clause – Full Text pdf Included…

  1. What difference does it make if there’s an “Exit Ramp” reserved for Iran? They never intend to honor the agreement in any way, shape or form. It’s all crap.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. boutis says:

    I cannot but think that Obama is going to get a payday from Iran after he is out of office. That is the only reason I can think of for such an agreement. The “exit ramp” confirms it because it is an exit ramp for Obama too.

    Liked by 1 person

    • justfactsplz says:

      I hope Congress gets enough votes to override the president’s veto on stopping this deal. It is no deal at all.

      Liked by 2 people

      • MrAleGuy says:

        You’re an optimistic one, aren’t you?

        After all the failure theatre involved in setting up almost insurmountable obstacles to reject this, the Senate has no intention of doing the hard work of overriding a veto.

        As if it mattered, because by that point, the U.N. will have already approved removal of the sanctions, Russia and China will have dropped the sanctions, and I’d be VERY surprised if they’ll “snap-back” with us.

        Liked by 1 person

    • John Galt says:

      Has to be. The only purpose of the agreement farce is release of sanctions and funds.

      Liked by 4 people

    • smiley says:

      speaking of his being out of office….
      a new Secretary-General of the UN will be appointed in 2016.
      wonder if he designs on that ?
      might be interesting, in light of the UN Security Council and this Iran “deal”.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. rsmith1776 says:

    Would any of those who think Trump (and to a lesser extent for now Cruz) are the bad guys, WHAT exactly are the so-called “decent Republicans” do about this deal? Concretely, effectively, before it is too late?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Obomination says:

      With regards to the Iran deal at least, there are very few decent Rs in the Senate. One to be exact. All but one Senate R (Cotton) voted to give up their constitutional authority to review this treaty (and yes I know Hussein says it’s not a treaty). A vote which I believe violated their oath.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Jersey Beach says:

    So it’s all in the wording and it’s a lose,lose for us.


    • Jersey Beach says:

      Listen to our presidential candidates, excerpt from article: “* Expect this to be an issue in the 2016 campaign.

      Paragraph 36 purports to be a dispute resolution clause. Underneath the costume, this is really a termination clause. Those who disagree will likely point to three arguments.*”


  5. socabill says:

    I have long maintained the UN Sec Gen spot is the only thing Black Jesus wants.

    Mark my words. It’s too perfect. It will come to pass.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Actually, SD, that’s good news. And much as I detest Iran’s current govt and religious leaders, the money that will be released is their money that the US locked up during or after the Revolution. I’m guessing that a lot of it must be private money, not sovereign wealth. Just a guess.
    Of course, it will be good for them, but prosperity is actually a good thing. Getting lots of new non-war toys, like cars, etc., can be quite distracting from things like jihad. Not totally, but still…


  7. lorac says:

    They’re going to just take the money and run.

    Why didn’t we just let Iran write the agreement? (on second thought, maybe we did)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s