The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

For a look at the text of the proposed regarding Iran's nuclear program, click here.

For descriptions of its content, click on the following:

- Wikipedia: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
- The Hill: What's in the Iran nuclear deal?

Why is the Iranian deal not a treaty?

A key feature of the nuclear deal is that it is not a "treaty" so it does not need a 2/3rds vote in the Senate in order for it to take effect. As a result of a deal made some time ago, all Congress - both the House and Senate - gets to do is pass a resolution supporting or opposing the bill. It can be vetoed, but even if it the veto is overridden, and I'm not sure about this right now, as a resolution, it does not carry much weight.

The point I want to emphasize here is that this is an executive agreement, not a treaty, so it does not fall under the process established under the Constitution. What is the difference between the two? Apparently the only distinction is what the president chooses to call it. Doing so then determines the role that the Senate plays in the deal.

The following Washington Post article discusses the rise of executive agreements:

- Here's the article: Can Congress stop the Iran deal?

. . . getting 67 senators to agree on complex international negotiations is difficult. So in the 1930s, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt figured out a workaround: He simply wouldn't call his international negotiations treaties. There, problem solved. His "executive agreements" could now unilaterally be approved by him and only him.

"When is a treaty not a treaty?" Stevenson said. "When it's not called a treaty." Otherwise: "There's no other difference."

Naturally, other presidents picked up on this politically convenient avenue. According to some statistics, executive agreements are now signed in the United States more than treaties -- by a ratio of 10-to-1. (Also: In the eyes of international law, there's no difference between the two.)

"That's the way the presidents have been since at least FDR," Stevenson said. "If they think they can get away with it, they'll do an executive agreement."

In the 1960s, Congress caught on to this sly move and passed a law requiring presidents to notify the legislative branch of all executive actions signed. But that didn't really stop presidents from making treaties and calling them by another name. It just meant they had to give Congress notice.