State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki raised a lot of eyebrows among journalists Tuesday with her declaration that any U.S. nuclear arms deal with Iran would be “nonbinding.” If it’s nonbinding, more than one questioner wanted to know, then why all the fuss? What does it all mean?
The questioning began with a query about the letter signed by 47 Senate Republicans warning Iran of the impermanence of any deal. “The Iranians, have they conveyed to you in any way that as a result of this letter, they may not have confidence in the United States of America and they may soon not — to sign an agreement?” asked a reporter.
“No,” said Psaki. “Let me also just speak to some historical examples, which may help you a little bit … Historically, under many administrations, the United States has pursued important international security initiatives through nonbinding arrangements where that has been in our national interest. In the arms control and nonproliferation area alone, some representative examples include the U.S.-Russia deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria, the Proliferation Security Initiative, the Nuclear Supplier Group Guidelines, the Missile Technology Control Regime. There’s a lot of precedent for this being political commitments made by all sides.”
“In that statement you just described them as nonbinding,” the reporter followed up.
“Well, I think that’s a legal term,” Psaki said.
“I mean, presumably everyone who agrees to this — if there is something to agree to — is bound by it, right?” asked the reporter.
“Well, yes,” Psaki said. “But there’s legal terminology — ”
That didn’t clarify much. An Iran deal would be political and not legal, nonbinding but binding. How would that work? “Jen, just to clarify,” asked another reporter, “when you were giving examples of agreements, national security agreements that Congress didn’t vote on, you said that from a legal perspective, the examples you gave were nonbinding. So are you saying that this Iran agreement, if it materializes, from a legal perspective is also nonbinding? It’s somehow binding politically, but from an international legal perspective it’s not binding?”
“Well, I used the example of Syria, right, as an example,” Psaki answered. “This framework was not legally binding and was not subject to congressional approval. It outlined steps for eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons and helped lay the groundwork for successful multilateral efforts to move forward. So I’m just conveying what we’re talking about as it relates to the political understandings and what we’re discussing with the parties.”
“If it was nonbinding, why did the Syrians comply with it?”
“Well, as you know, we — there was an agreement — there were discussions, and they agreed to certain terms,” Psaki said. “And then it went to the [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] and then it went to the UN. So — ”
The reporter interrupted. “Actually, in the case of the security — the Syrian agreement, there was a Security Council vote, which I think made it binding.”
“I just said — and then it went to the UN to the Security Council vote,” Psaki agreed.
“Right,” said the reporter. “But you’re not going to have that in this [Iran] agreement.”
“Exactly,” Psaki said.
Underlying the reporter-spokesman exchange was the question of whether a possible Iran agreement, which has caused huge controversy and political conflict in Washington, might not be worth all the struggle. At least that was the tone of the next line of questioning.
“Just to clarify, is it legally binding or not, this Iran agreement?” a reporter asked. “Will it be legally binding from an international legal perspective if you negotiate this agreement, or will it be something lesser than that, a political commitment?”
“What I’m referring to is the political commitments in terms of what the next additional steps would be,” Psaki said. “I’m not sure how much farther or more information we would have. I’m certainly happy to check with our team and see if there’s more we can clarify.”
“The problem is that you’ve stressed over and over again this is not about trusting, right?” noted the reporter. “This is about verifying. But then you’re saying that these are political commitments but not necessarily binding. It would seem to me that if this wasn’t about trust, you would want them to be binding, not political commitments, which are your word. A political commitment just means ‘I will do this.'”
“It is not that,” Psaki insisted. “We’re talking about how specifically pieces would be agreed to between the parties. In terms of the implementation of it, I’m sure we will talk about that at the time we would have an agreement.”
“As I understand a political commitment, it means a person or a political entity saying, ‘I will do this; I commit to doing this,'” the reporter persisted. “How is that not anything other than giving your word?”
“Well, again, if we get to the point where we have a framework, where we have an agreement, I’m sure we will have a discussion about how things will be implemented,” Psaki said.
What to make of all that? Given the obvious importance of an Iran arms deal, many have assumed that, if such a deal is reached, it will actually bind the parties to behave in certain ways. Psaki’s almost casual mention that the possible deal will be a nonbinding political agreement struck the reporters listening — and some of them are quite experienced covering the diplomatic beat — as curious, given the massive effort involved in the Iranian negotiations.
The episode served to illustrate the confusion that surrounds Iran and nuclear weapons. Even if the talks are successful, what, exactly, will be the result? We know President Obama is determined not to include Congress in any agreement. We know that the kind of deal the president can reach himself, with no input from lawmakers, is necessarily weaker than an agreement that wins the formal approval of Congress. And now, the State Department says any deal will be political, not legal, in nature. And that doesn’t appear to mean much. “Politically binding means you’re bound until you’re not bound — until you decide you don’t want to have an agreement any more,” notes one former senior U.S. diplomat. “To say that it is not binding means that it’s not an agreement.”
