1) Hook talked about Iran's "lawless" pursuit of ballistic missiles. The word "lawless" is meaningless in this context. He used it because he cannot use the terms "illegal" or "unlawful" in good conscience. He knows that Iran's missile program is legal under Int'l law.
2) Hook admitted that UNSC Res. 2231 lifted the prohibition on Iran’s missile program. He also admitted that Res. 2231 "superseded" previous Res. 1929 which had instituted the prohibition.
3) He just doesn't bother explaining why the Security Council made the change and unanimously determined that Iran's missile program no longer constituted a threat to international peace and security. He explains the shift in passing by claiming that Iran "lobbied hard" for it.
4) The truth is that the UNSC, as the sole authoritative organ in charge of making such determinations, made this new determination on the ground that absent nuclear warheads, Iran's ballistic missiles would no longer pose a threat to peace or constitute a breach of peace.
5) In other words, absent a nuclear weapons program, Iran's ballistic missiles would fall under the category of "conventional weapons".
6) Hook claims that Iran's pace of missile launches did not diminish after JCPOA implementation. But in making this allegation, he conveniently omits to describe the region's security landscape and the US sales of billions of dollars in military equipment to Saudi Arabia.
7) He wants the audience to believe that Iran's missile activities are linked to the implementation of the JCPOA, not to the hostile security environment in which Iran operates; And certainly not to the "imbalance of power" created by US sales of weapons to Iran's rivals!
8) Hook claims that the JCPOA was a "personal agreement" between two governments, as opposed to a "treaty" which would have presumably engaged two "states". He implies that only agreements ratified by 2/3 of US senate are binding to the next administration.
9) This is wrong too. First, the term "personal agreement" is meaningless. Governments represent "States" in international negotiations. Secondly, the vast majority of US international commitments are Executive agreements, not ratified by the Senate.
10) Third, the JCPOA is not a bilateral agreement between two states (or even governments as Hook claims), it is a multilateral agreement endorsed by the UNSC and annexed to a UNSC resolution.
11) Hook claims that his administration seeks to sign a comprehensive "treaty" with Iran. However, he expects Iran to enter negotiations for a new treaty under duress and coercion, in blatant contravention to international norms governing international treaty law.
12) The truth is that if his administration is seriously looking for a treaty, it should at the least commit to abide by principles governing treaties, one of which being "The Prohibition of the Use of Duress in Treaty Negotiations".
13) But Brian Hook doesn't want to make that commitment. On the contrary, he wants to maximize pressure on Iran so to force the sovereign country into entering a new "treaty!
As if that "colonial-era treaty" would have any validity under Iranian or International law!
As if that "colonial-era treaty" would have any validity under Iranian or International law!
14) Brian Hook, like the rest of the Trump administration's foreign-policy team, seems to believe that the world is governed by US domestic laws, not international law; And that the US should act based on their perceived national interests not international rules.
15) And ironically, this teams plans to convene a meeting at the UNSC next week, chaired by Trump himself, to lecture the world on nonproliferation, constitutionalism and sovereignty!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
