US Terminates 1955 Treaty with Iran After UN Orders Trump To Lift Sanctions

Combined Shape

The United States announced Wednesday it will withdraw from a bilateral treaty with Iran 63 years following its execution. The Treaty of Amity was executed in 1955 between the two nations when times were different and the nations were allies.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Wednesday that the U.S. would withdraw from the treaty, Fox News reported. He called the action “39 years overdue,” referring to the 1979 revolution in Iran.

Iran sought relief from current sanctions in the United Nations’ International Court of Justice, claiming the U.S. was prohibited under the treaty from imposing sanctions related to certain humanitarian provisions and safety equipment.

In essence, Iran has attempted to thwart U.S. sanctions by means of an international court, rather than by fully complying with international requirements related to its development of nuclear capabilities.

Earlier Wednesday, the ICJ had issued a preliminary decision that the U.S. must “remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from” sanctions that affect exports to Iran of medicine, medical devices, food, agricultural commodities and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation, Fox reported.

Trending:
US Chamber of Commerce Defies Biden, Calls for Termination of Weekly Unemployment Perk

Calling the ICJ decision a victory, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif referred to the Trump administration as an “outlaw regime.”

The United States, however, had never recognized the jurisdiction of the ICJ over the sanctions, arguing that they had been imposed as a matter of national security.

In response to the ICJ decision, Pompeo said in a news conference that Iran’s case was “meritless” and argued that Iran was “attempting to interfere with the sovereign rights of the United States to take lawful actions necessary to protect our national security and abusing the ICJ for political and propaganda purposes.”

Do you think withdrawing from the treaty was the right move?

Pompeo then announced the U.S. would withdraw from the treaty rather than pursue the case further or formally oppose the court’s jurisdiction.

He further interpreted the ICJ’s decision as a “defeat for Iran,” saying that the U.N. court had “denied Iran’s attempt to secure broad measures to interfere with US sanctions and rightly noted Iran’s history of non-compliance with its international obligations under the treaty of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.”

The treaty had been executed between the two nations with the stated purpose of “emphasizing the friendly relations which have long prevailed between their peoples, of reaffirming the high principles in the regulation of human affairs to which they are committed, of encouraging mutually beneficial trade and investments and closer economic intercourse generally between their peoples, and of regulating consular relations.”

According to its own terms, the treaty could be terminated any time by either party: “Either High Contracting Party may, by giving one year’s written notice to the other High Contracting Party, terminate the present Treaty at the end of the initial ten-year period or at any time thereafter.”

Because the initial 10-year period passed in 1965, the U.S. has since been free to withdraw at any time.

Related:
Bob Ehrlich: 4 Headlines That Show the Downright Weird State of America Today

According to Pompeo, now is the time.

Last May, President Donald Trump pulled out of the Obama-era nuclear agreement with Iran and reimposed numerous sanctions that had been lifted by Obama. Termination of the treaty precedes Trump’s stated intent to reimpose additional sanctions against Iran’s crude oil exports, expected in November.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →






We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Tags:
, , , , , , , , ,
Dana Nottingham's writing focuses on politics, government, international relations, law, business and families. He has been a content creator for various websites, writing opinion and editorial analysis of current events and affairs and how they affect communities, families and individuals. Educated in international business and law, Dana fully understands how the world functions. He is pro-business, yet recognizes certain limitations are required to maintain the proper balance between supplier and consumer. Dana’s experience include working in the district office of a member of Congress and developing and building a growing Colorado city. Dana has lived in both Mexico and Peru and speaks and writes fluent Spanish. In Colorado, he served as a substitute radio host for two of the top-rated Spanish-language radio programs in Denver and even hosted his own Spanish-language radio program.
Dana Nottingham is an often humorous writer focusing on politics, government, international relations, law, business and families. He has been a content creator for various websites, writing opinion and editorial analysis of current events and affairs and how they affect communities, families and individuals.

Dana believes the future of the United States, and even the world, rests upon the strength of the family. A family, no matter its size or makeup, is both the most basic and the most important unit of government, where all education, training, support and even fun should originate.

Educated in international business and law, Dana understands how the world functions. He is pro-business, yet recognizes certain limitations are required to maintain the proper balance between supplier and consumer. Capitalism provides the best opportunity for success, growth and prosperity but certainly needs to be checked to assure that dishonest, deceitful and harmful practices do not detrimentally affect the system, the economy and the family.

Dana’s law and government experience include working in the district office of a Member of Congress and developing and building a growing Colorado city. He is pro-government to the extent that he understands government is a necessary yet intrusive means to protect our lives, our liberties and our pursuits of happiness, but fully believes government (whether national, state or local) should be as small as necessary to accomplish its limited purposes.

Dana has lived in both Mexico and Peru and speaks and writes fluent Spanish. In Colorado, he served as a substitute radio host for two of the top-rated Spanish-language radio programs in Denver and even hosted his own Spanish-language radio program. He understands and supports the vital role of legal immigrants and immigration, while recognizing the failure of the United States to properly address either legal or illegal immigration. Dana advocates complete reformation (and subsequent enforcement) of our nation’s immigration laws.

A classically trained pianist, Dana often accompanies local singers and groups in performances, large and small. He also performs an annual Independence Day concert, sharing his music and thoughts about the freedoms and blessings enjoyed from living in the United States.

In his spare time, Dana likes to camp, hike, waterski, watch college football and work in the yard with his five children.
Birthplace
California
Nationality
American
Education
B.S. International Business; JD, Law
Location
Lincoln, Nebraska
Languages Spoken
English, Spanish
Topics of Expertise
Politics, Faith, Immigration, Business, Families




Conversation