 
Part by Part Synopsis of  
Security Council Permit to Bedlam

Jean-Marc LeBouquin

Copywrite © 2017 Jean-Marc LeBouquin – cover, title page under same copywrite.

Smashwords Edition

Smashwords Edition, License Notes:

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to your favorite ebook retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for your very kind regard.
Table of Contents

Purpose of this book

Perspective on a Starting Point

A Brief Foreword

Chapter I – Notice

Chapter I, 1st Portion – Opening a Weapons Market

1st Portion; Part A – Some Basic Parameters of the E3/EU+3 Iran Arrangement

1st Portion; Part B – Stipulated Exact Implementation Timelines for Scheduled Weapons Transactions

1st Portion; Part C – A Quick Primer on IAEA Inspections of Iranian Mining and Milling Facilities

1st Portion; Part D – Other Essential Treaties to Ignore & Laws to Terminate

1st Portion; Part E – Concealing the Source of a Security Council Sponsored Potential Arms Race

1st Portion; Part F – Gun Play Without Exception

1st Portion; Part G – Glittering Hopes for a Glamorous Arms Trade

Chapter I, 2nd Portion – Big Town; Best Dirty Politics

2nd Portion; Part A – Scrambling for Internet Celebrity and Identity

2nd Portion; Part B – How Can People do Such Crazy Things?

Chapter I, 3rd Portion – Justice Sutherland and the Chaco Region Conflict

Chapter II – Denying the IAEA Access to Iranian Mining and Milling Sites and Operations

Chapter III – Civilian Urban Zone, and Military Battlefield Deployment of Non-Fissile Nuclear Weaponry

Chapter III, 1st Portion – The Urban Terrorist's Nuclear Option

Chapter III, 2nd Portion – Year 15

Chapter III, 3rd Portion – Easily Subverted International Atomic Energy Agency

Chapter IV – A Universal Bill of Attainder, as Well as Other Offenses

Chapter V – Petition and Remedy .

Chapter VI – What is it Still Doing Here?
_Purpose of this book_

This book is a part by part synopsis of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ , which is a fairly long book; quite a commitment for the reader to take on without having much of a sense of what's in it.

In the old days, when books were made out of paper, one could go into the local book store and read through different portions of an actual book at will to get a sense of it. With e-books – the publisher tends to pick out the reading samples, many according to their various policies – that's kind of what goes on.

It can be somewhat challenging trying to figure out from selective samples of the larger book, _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ is about. This author feels it is perhaps an unfair challenge to the reader – that's why I decided to write this part-by-part synopsis of the larger book.

_Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ is about how the United Nations, almost overnight; or rather over the course of a few short New York minutes, was transformed on the bright and early Monday morning of 20 July 2015, at the 7488th \Meeting of the Security Council, from an organization dedicated to developing friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..., into possibly the most organized and best internationally connected hell-hound of a nuclear arms dealing syndicate the world may yet have seen.

That's correct! One minute you're standing in line, waiting for your cup of coffee – nothing complicated or demanding, no double mocha latte with cinnamon soy milk or anything like that here, just plain black coffee please, that's all – and POW; somewhere across town U.N. functionaries are out of their chairs like wildcat hyenas; busily texting their home bases bunkered in mysterious nether regions of their respective countries – messaging the leaderships maybe with: "They finally did it, U.S. President Barack Obama and the rest of the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel finally got around to getting something finished!"

The E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel is made up of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation, Germany, the Republic of France and the People's Republic of China, along with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. That's the group that that is responsible for this whole travesty of an history.

This writing is, of course, not privy to the exact words of any of the various excited messages sent back to Home Offices of the Security Council delegations – that's strictly super-sensitive, totally encrypted diplomatic stuff; naturally.

But what the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel finally got done was renamed as United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015) – after the conventional United Nations Security Council style of renaming draft proposal resolutions. The resolution contained, contains, as its Annex A, the full document of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed in Vienna about a week before on 14 July 2015; as well as the remainder of the resolution which features a number of interesting and substantial provisions scheduling weapons concessions to Iran.

The JCPOA is the lynchpin of the Security Council resolution. The JCPOA contains the lion's share of the provisions detailing how the Security Council is to expedite Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons related technologies, goods, facilities support, and various other support services on an on-going basis. All activities associated with these procedures are decided by the Security Council to be exempt from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) review or examination.

The Security Council established a new internal bureaucracy, the Procurement Working Group, to handle expediting Iranian acquisitions of the above class of inventories. As a result of its efforts thus far; from November 2016 through June 2017 the first nine of an ongoing series of nuclear weapons related transfers to Iran were approved by the U.N. per the provisions of the JCPOA and in violation of treaty. There are more on the way, but the Procurement Working Group only lists the number of these acquisitions once every six months – so that's the latest official count released so far.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; Paragraph 2 of Annex B: Statement, allows that such approvals could have begun on JCPOA Implementation Day – which would turn out to be 16 January 2016. However, at such an early stage the logistics of submittal of procurement proposals, proposal for acquisitions of such nuclear weapons associated inventories, had not yet been adequately set up.

The first of two procurement proposals were finally submitted on 6 October 2016, and were subsequently approved by the Security Council on 17 November 2016, about a week after the conclusion of the National elections in the United States.

Naturally this whole scheme of converting the campuses, corridors and resources of the United Nations into a staging area for on-going weapons deals goes against the multi-laterally signed Constituent Treaty of the _Charter of the United Nations_ , and the multi-lateral _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ (NPT) at the very least;

But the Obama-era leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy, the most influential authors of the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement; they've got an angle on almost everything – or so the story seems to go.

The all-open-for-public-viewing ruses used, by the Obama-era five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy membership, to argue and explain away the illegitimacy of the activities spelled out in the JCPOA and the rest of the resolution are sometimes surprisingly puerile and simplistic; and at other times quite complex – either way these have to be examined as traps for the unwary.

The language of the resolution itself is diplomatic and serene, sometimes evasive and false in its assertions (as we shall examine); but civilized sounding – almost enough to not quite cover over the Paleolithic viciousness of the regressive misanthropes who invented the disgrace.

The ruses used are some times mixed with each other, and of necessity in the narrative, are addressed, and reappear in combination, in various parts of the book.

This is one of the reasons for this part-by-part synopsis – it is to give an overall sense of the workings of this whole squirmy plot. This author fears that a sample reading of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ , even a substantial sample of the book, might be confusing and unfair to the reader; there would be no overall sense of the motivations and the actions being described at any one point. A substantial sample of the long book is available on the internet, naturally. Hopefully, after reading this synopsis, the reader might be able to jump into the sample and already feel somewhat oriented as to what is being discussed.

* * * * *

ON APRIL 17, 2015, in a Joint Press Conference between himself and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi conducted from the East Room of the White House; Barack Obama informed the Italian Prime Minister, and the U.S. and foreign press in attendance, of his (Obama's) own singular interpretation of The Constitution of the United States:

"...The second concern [about a vote in the Congress with regards to Obama's "Iran Deal"] I had was just an issue of presidential prerogatives.... This is not a formal treaty that is being envisioned. And the President of the United States, whether Democrat or Republican, traditionally has been able to enter into political agreements that are binding with other countries without congressional approval...

[This quote is archived and can be found at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/17/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-renzi-italy-joint-press-conference]

The above declaration by President Obama, and other sayings of his much like it, caused a flurry of excitement in a U.S. news media always eager to catch on to one of those glimmering pearls of wisdom that would pop out of the White House windows and tumble onto the front lawn from time to time.

The comment raised questions like: "Can a President conclude a negotiation with a foreign power that isn't a treaty that requires review from Congress?" and "Is Obama's 'Iran deal' a treaty or just an Executive Agreement of some sort – or something like that or what?"

Questions like these amounted to the means for the news media to dote and write endless copy on speculative conjecture regarding what the status of Obama's "Iran Deal" might really be; this when at the time such questions were being asked, the deal had not yet been published. The questions were nebulous, arousing enthusiastic theorizing pertaining to nothing tangible that anyone could intelligently comment on.

Later, once the text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 was made available to the public – the pertinent questions were not (to this writing's knowledge) asked in the press or in the Congress. The pertinent questions are:

– Is the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement negotiated by President Obama legal to enforce?

– Is the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement negotiated by President Obama a treaty?

The answer to the first question is _NO_ ; the Executive Branch cannot legally enforce Obama's agreement or put any part of it into play as it violates international treaty and the United States Constitution. Barack Obama successfully negotiated to establish a Security Council sponsored Procurement Working Group with the mandate to expedite nuclear weapons associated Technologies to a non-nuclear-weapon State. This is in egregious violation of Article I of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which declares:

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

ARTICLE I

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty **undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control** over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and **not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons** or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

This Treaty, one of the fundamental arms control international treaties of the modern era; jointly conceived by the United States and the Soviet Union; made under the Authority of the United States – meaning it met with at least two thirds approval from the Senate and was subsequently signed for, ratified, by a United States President;

This is the treaty that Barack Obama, and the supportive acolyte minions of his administration, chose to violate when they instigated a resolution in the United Nations which establishes Security Council active support for working protocols and procedures expediting approval of the transfer to a non-nuclear-weapon State of the means to manufacture nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and to give that non-nuclear-weapon State complete control over those devices as of 18 October 2030;

This is the treaty that Barack Obama, along with the supportive acolyte minions of his administration, chose to violate when they developed United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; which, as it directs in its text, assists, encourages, and induces a non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or acquire control over such weapons or explosive devices.

A U.S. President can generally negotiate an international agreement with a foreign power without having to consult Congress every step of the way. A President cannot negotiate a deal with a foreign Prince or Potentate that violates the United States Constitution. This current negotiation in question, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015) violates the United States Constitution. Examining clause 2 of Article VI of the United States Constitution:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

[Clause 2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and **all Treaties made** , or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be **the supreme Law of the Land** ; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any **Thing** in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary **notwithstanding**.

Obama's Security Council resolution egregiously violates a supreme Law of the Land, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – and no, a President has no authority under the Constitution to negotiate away that treaty or the United States Constitution – or negotiate things that violate U.S. Statute. If a President believes that a negotiation has merit but that there is a point which may violate some aspect of U.S. statute; then (s)he is welcome to approach Congress with concerns and merits regarding such an issue so that a solution might be worked out.

However, the President does not have the authority to legislate, effectively through negotiation, the disbanding of a treaty, the Constitution, or a given statute; or even in collusion with or under the authority of a foreign Prince or Potentate.

It is for the assembled representatives in Congress to reach a conclusion as to the merits of a President's opinions – and, if need be, enact legislations confirming the merits of the President's view on an aspect, and bringing the concepts into practical and constructive reality. Again, a President on his own, or even with the backing of a foreign Prince, can't change the law.

If a President had the authority to defy the Constitution in order to appease a foreign Power, then any idea of United States sovereignty would be a joke. Any timid enough oaf of a President who is made to feel uncomfortable being grilled by a foreign head of State could be cajoled into giving away the farm if the authority to defy the Constitution in order to appease a foreign Power were permitted a President.

Just so, a President has no authority to alter the Constitution by virtue of an agreement negotiated with a foreign Power:

Remembering all the foreign dictators of the past which the United States has contended with; then consider how lucky and happy they might have felt should they have had the immense fortune of inviting a President Obama into their chambers of negotiation; so as to take the opportunity to discuss how the United States Constitution should be favorably ignored or altered to suit the tastes of the respective Prince. Obama is a priceless precious gift beyond compare to any negotiator sitting across the table from him.

Obama could be relied upon by the Prince or Potentate to return to his home country and preach and extol the ideology that a President doesn't need the Congress to approve of his administration's negotiations with foreign leaders; a negotiation in which it was roundly decided upon, between the big boys and girls negotiating, that the United States Constitution was just getting in the way of. (Indeed, we shall also examine and document, later in this writing, that President Obama never even transmitted Resolution 2231 – the full "Iran Deal," to the Congress. That perhaps tells some of the story of how much of an impediment Obama must have felt the Constitution and the law is to those presidents who would expeditiously comply with the will and directives of the Prince.)

Obama could be relied upon by the Prince or Potentate to return to his home country and preach to the electorate things like:

"...The second concern I had was just an issue of presidential prerogatives.... This is not a formal treaty that is being envisioned. And the President of the United States, whether Democrat or Republican, traditionally has been able to enter into political agreements that are binding with other countries without congressional approval..."

The framers of the Constitution had clearly thought carefully about the divisions of Powers. Legislative Powers (on the national level) were assigned to the Legislature – the Congress of the United States. The President, the Executive Branch, was assigned the task of carrying out legislation enacted by Congress.

Acting in the role of international negotiation – the President would be the lead diplomat, representing the Constitution. He is not to represent himself and his own personal political interests, whims and ideologies. And he is not to attempt to use a negotiation as an excuse to pretend that he has the power to enact legislation, because he had agreed with a foreign potentate that the President's negotiation should be understood as the supreme law of the land.

In the above ruse; this nonsense that Obama presented to the Italian Prime Minister and the news-media – Obama put one his great conceits in action and on public display; that he could convince anyone of any notion no matter how preposterous. It's important to bring this though up – throughout the course of selling his deal to the new-media, Obama finds it essential to dish out all kinds of garbage like the above little ploy.

ASIDE FROM THAT POINT; this writing submits also; that neither Barack Obama could, nor can the succeeding President, legitimately sustain any part of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231; as a large part of the resolution concerns that transfer of nuclear weapons capacity to a non-nuclear-weapon State in violation of Treaty made under the Authority of the United States. For the President to decide on what to keep, what to conform to in the Treaty; and what not to keep, what not to conform to in the Treaty; in such circumstance and context, such decision making might be construed as the Executive Branch assuming a judicial power to apply a determination as to what a Treaty is or is not – to apply a judicial determination as to when the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ is pleasing to accept, and when it should not be considered as applicable or relevant. The Executive is not recognized by the Constitution of as being competent to make any such judicial determination or assessment. The United States Constitution emphatically vests the Authority to apply such determinations in the Judiciary.

Therefore again, _NO_ , a President does not have any authority, "traditional" or otherwise, to violate the Constitution in an international negotiation.

Nevertheless, that's what Obama did; he came back home to his accolades with this E3/EU+3 Cartel horror-story of a shoddy arrangement under his arm; an arrangement which appeases the Ministers of the Government of Iran with the unheard of concession that the Security Council is now going to set up a Procurement Working Group to expedite approvals of Iranian acquisitions towards developing nuclear weapons capacity and keep the IAEA off the Iranian Government's back while this is underway (and there are more concessions than just that).

The Security Council faces the same problem as Barack Obama and those still supporting the ghost of the Obama regime's ongoing policies. The Charter of the United Nations prohibits the Security Council from enacting any resolution which violates international treaty – as we shall later examine.

Therefore, the Security Council can most reasonably be construed as having no resolution made under any Authority of the Charter of the United Nations to support their policy of expediting to Iran any of the means to manufacture nuclear weapons which the Council undertakes in violation of Article I of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

This is one reason why United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 is going to inevitably end up before the International Court of Justice at one point or another.

Arguably, the only thing holding things up is that this new guy in the White House still seems to be trying to get his act together – and who perhaps hasn't had a chance to get around to speaking with the multitude of States unhappy with the resolution; States which might feel existentially threatened by the resolution and may be waiting for the United States Government to show a little spine and commitment to getting an organized international petition to the Court underway.

LET'S LEAVE THE first question for the moment and move to the second – these questions are closely inter-related; second question:

– Is the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement negotiated by President Obama a treaty?

Again, another _NO_. The first test in order for an agreement to qualify for recognition as an international treaty is that it passes minimum legal standards. Players cannot simply claim that because a few States, or State sponsored actors have made an agreement, whatever the parameters of the agreement; that this is automatically recognized as an international treaty.

This following Article 53 from the _Vienna Convention on the law of treaties_ explains what is meant by peremptory norm of general international law:

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

*PART V. INVALIDITY, TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

*SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

_Article 53_. Treaties Conflicting With a  
Peremptory Norm of General International Law ("Jus Cogens")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

A fundamental minimum legal standard for an agreement to be recognized as an international treaty is that it not on any level violate peremptory norm of general international law from which no derogation is permitted. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 must most reasonably be construed as violating a peremptory norm of general international law from which no derogation can be made.

The entire membership of the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel are party to the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ (the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty; NPT) – including Iran, if anyone was wondering. Nevertheless, all have participated in organizing amongst themselves an agreement which egregiously violates an international treaty to which they are all a Party. It is a mistaken assumption that those few members of a multilateral treaty also signed on to by some twenty times more States than that group's few number, can simply call off their participation in the treaty and at the same time be recognized as being in partnership with the treaty.

This little insubordinate group of States Party to the NPT is further, not just any tiny renegade splinter faction. This group includes the five nuclear weapon States, featuring the two Nuclear Weapon States, the Russian Federation and the United States of America, which are most directly responsible for the inception and creation of the NPT – the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ ; these are the two States now leading the pack running a-field in headlong departure from that treaty.

The E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement, hastily retreating from the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ , seeks to provide nuclear weapons capacity to that one favored Shiite State in an already inflamed region where none of Iran's targeted Sunni neighbors are being offered (nor have they ever sought it) the same nuclear weapons capacity by the Obama-era leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy. This could be most reasonably understood as a morally despicable provocation of rivalry, fear and trouble between neighbors.

This betrayal of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty by France, China, the United Kingdom, Russia and the United States might well be thought of as possibly the most shaming and disgraceful display of corrupted and hypocritical international leadership yet presented by the five permanent members of the vaunted elite of the United Nations; and these leadership caricature personas also demand the use of the premises and resources of the United Nations as a reliable staging area accommodating their on-going marketing needs. The E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel intends to drag, either directly or indirectly, all States without exception into their scheme – as we shall examine.

IT COULD BE CONSTRUED as incontrovertible that United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 violates many basic tenets of peremptory norm of general international law and therefore cannot be recognized as an international treaty.

This writing submits that Barack Obama did not negotiate an international treaty; rather, he negotiated an illegitimate arrangement between himself and the rest of the membership of the Cartel.

As to a president's authority to reach an agreement with a foreign power without seeking approval from Congress. This writing submits that it is generally good policy in government for the Executive to honestly keep the Congress informed as to the details of an agreement to be concluded with a foreign Power. Theoretically it might not be necessary in some cases to seek Congressional approval, especially if the agreement regards the working out and facilitating of general routine matters.

In this case however; sadly, Congressional approval couldn't be had because of the extraordinary illegitimacy of what had been negotiated. Approval from Congress would not have made a difference when this case comes before the International Court of Justice – it is the flagrant violations of peremptory norm of general international law that will undoubtedly decide the issue.

Barack Obama, having failed to produce an equitable deal between the United States and the Ministers of the Government of Iran; also actively froze the Congress out of its responsibility to review the farce that he and his team had developed over the period of their approximately two year negotiation with the Ministers of the Government of Iran. In the end, Obama wouldn't transmit the Security Council resolution which contained the whole of his "Iran Deal" to the Congress; as this writing will touch on, and _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ will document in further detail.

* * * * *

Because part of the intention of this book is to make it a fairly short and leisurely read – this synopsis is really an overall description of the affair, and not intended as a comprehensive write-up. The details of procedures and supporting documentation of the full narrative are to be found in the text of the entire _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ ,

The above being noted – let us proceed to the next, if we shall.
_Perspective on a Starting Point_

In many Security Council resolutions, the narrative will begin with (depending on the language translation) something like: " _The Security Council,_ " and then the text of what the Security Council "Decides," or "Resolves, " or "Recognizes, " or "Affirms, " or "Demands, " or whatever, follows.

The narrative of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015) also begins with: " _The Security Council,_ "

Not counting that phrase as a paragraph, this writing elects to begin counting paragraphs from the next one down.

The eighth paragraph of Resolution 2231 declares:

[The Security Council] "Affirming that full implementation of the JCPOA will contribute to building confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme,"

The Security Council here pledges that its Resolution 2231 (of which the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions – JCPOA – is a part of) guarantees that Iranian development of nuclear technologies and applications is, and will remain, exclusively peaceful in nature.

In the same document – United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 – in Annex A: JCPOA of the resolution, the United Nations Security Council establishes a Procurement Working Group with a mandate to expedite transfer to Iran nuclear weapons specific inventories; as for example: "... _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions written or recorded on other media or devices such as disk, tape, read-only memories_ ;" as our examination of the resolution will reveal.

The authors of the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel agreement – renamed United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 – might not have entirely understood, when the Council put that claim of "exclusively peaceful" into writing, the full extent of cumbrous nature of the two-fold objectives of the ambitious project they had taken on.

The Security Council on the one hand would make a few statements declaring its Resolution 2231 to be of "an exclusively peaceful" nature, while in the very same resolution the Council details the precise manner in which nuclear weapons capacity is to be expedited to Iran under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council – and also, Resolution 2231 decrees that the International Atomic Energy Agency is prohibited from contact with any knowledge or examination of; and is prohibited from reporting on these nuclear weapons associated transfers;

Just in this, the Security Council violates the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – otherwise known as the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – and the United Nations Security Council in one exceedingly foul and predatory swooping gesture.

In accomplishing the above, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015) presents the United Nations Security Council with two singular and untried challenges:

**The first challenge** is that the Security Council must, over a ten to fifteen year period – and possibly beyond that – carry out its promise to Iran that it will expedite transfer to Iran of nuclear weapons technologies, goods, as well as services such as facilities support and supply – and more;

And this is all clearly written in the text of Resolution 2231 and the text of the associated documents that the resolution refers to.

**The second challenge** facing the Security Council; is that, over at least a ten to fifteen year period, the Council must continue to maintain the international charade, among governments and electorates, that the decreed U.N. expedited nuclear weapons associated transfers to Iran are being duly carried out in support of an "exclusively peaceful project;"

This sneering mockery is undertaken by the Council despite that fact that United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 is in public view and is publicly available, without cost, for the general public and the governments of the various nations to read.

The Security Council must carry out this tease so successfully over an extended period of time, as to cajole western electorates, and governments internationally into such a state of slumbering quiescence that these electorates; and especially these governments of the international community, simply don't become entirely frustrated and fed up with the trashy nonsense of this arms-dealing-syndicate of a Security Council, and with its written commitment to the transfer of nuclear weapons capacity to a non-nuclear weapon State;

The Security Council must continue to cajole States into accepting the designated arms-dealing arrangements which the Security Council had no authority, under the Charter of the United Nations to promise in the first place;

The Council must maintain its charade over an extended time period in order that States don't simply band together and drag this very dangerous bio-hazard of a Security Council resolution into the International Court of Justice to have it confirmed that the resolution authored by the five permanent Member States of the Security Council was void even before the non-permanent Member States of the Security Council had glanced at it for the first time on Monday 20 July 2015, and even before the Obama administration officially deposited it with the Security Council on Friday, 17 July 2015;

The Council must maintain its charade over an extended time period in order that States don't simply band together and drag this very menacing and destructive resolution into the International Court of Justice to have it confirmed that the Council's recommendation was void from the start as it contravenes peremptory norm of general international law from which no derogation can be made; it is in egregious violation of international treaty; and it is in no way supportable by the Charter of the United Nations, the only document which gives the Security Council any authority to decide on, or act on anything at all.

The course of this writing will present that the burden is on the Security Council that if the Security Council is unable to justify before the Court that the arm-trading agreements manufactured and established by the Security Council are in any way supported by the Charter of the United Nations; then the States making up the Council and engaging in this sport are simply to be construed as behaving as the mobster kingpins of an independent arms-dealing syndicate without any mandate; and acting outside of international treaty and generally accepted norms; and the Charter of the United Nations.

Suffering rebuke from the Court; Resolution 2231 and its provided for arms trade, could be declared as void from the from the point at which the last signature had been fixed on the document, and nations involved in the disgrace could be forced to bring their mutual relations into conformity with the peremptory norm of general international law – as the Court would determine. The meaning and implications of all of this will become clearer as this synopsis and the _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ progresses.
A Brief Foreword

" _A Brief Foreword_ ," as it is presented in _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ , is a general orientation and introduction to that writing.

That introduction notes that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015, later presented to the United Nations Security Council with additional provisions, and subsequently accepted by the Security Council and renamed United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), claims, in the eighth paragraph of its introduction **/** preamble that the JCPOA guarantees through the agreement, Resolution 2231, that the Security Council has established a nuclear energy development project in Iran which guarantees the exclusively peaceful nature of the United Nations Security Council/Iranian project – that eighth paragraph declares the following:

" _Affirming_ that full implementation of the JCPOA will contribute to building confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme,"

That claim, presented in the eighth paragraph (clause) of Resolution 2231, is specious; Annex A: JCPOA of Resolution 2231 establishes a United Nations Agency (the Joint Commission/Procurement Working Group) to exactly expedite transfers of specifically nuclear weapons dedicated systems, goods and services to the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is spelled out in the text of the JPCOA itself.

Further, under the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, Iran is eventually to assume complete control over the nuclear weapons associated acquisitions expedited over the years, through the Agency and offices of the Security Council's Procurement Working Group.

* * * * *

Much of the nuclear weapons related inventory stipulated by Resolution 2231 as transferable to Iran is listed on the International Atomic Energy Agency Information Circular _INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a_. This is the source document that stipulates caution in transferring items listed on it, as follows:

IAEA Information Circular INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a (Date: 13 November 2013);

GUIDELINES FOR TRANSFERS OF NUCLEAR-RELATED DUAL-USE EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED TECHNOLOGY

OBJECTIVE

1. With the objective of averting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and preventing acts of nuclear terrorism, suppliers have had under consideration procedures in relation to the transfer of certain equipment, materials, software, and related technology that could make a major contribution to a "nuclear explosive activity," an "unsafeguarded nuclear fuel-cycle activity" or acts of nuclear terrorism. In this connection, suppliers have agreed on the following principles, common definitions, and an export control list of equipment, materials, software, and related technology. Suppliers intend to implement the Guidelines in accordance with national legislation and relevant international commitments.

And some of the Basic Principles are:

BASIC PRINCIPLE

2. Suppliers should not authorize transfers of equipment, materials, software, or related technology identified in the Annex:

– for use in a non-nuclear-weapon state in a nuclear explosive activity or

– in general, when there is an unacceptable risk of diversion to such an activity, or when the transfers are contrary to the objective of averting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or

– when there is an unacceptable risk of diversion to acts of nuclear terrorism.

Awareness and knowledge of the contents of the INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a list is essential to an understanding of the nature of the Security Council approved transfers to Iran of nuclear weapons related technologies, goods and services. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 features provisions for expediting approvals for Iranian acquisition on inventories listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a in both its _Annex A: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action_ ; and its _Annex B: Statement_.

* * * * *

Articles I and II of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), full title being the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ , declare the following:

ARTICLE I

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty **undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control** over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and **not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons** or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

ARTICLE II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty **undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices** or **of control over such weapons** or explosive **devices directly, or indirectly** ; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and **not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture** of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

This means that Parties to the Treaty agree when signing that they will not in any way assist; nor will any Party to the Treaty seek or accept assistance; in acquiring or developing nuclear weapons capacity – and no party will give permission; nor will any Party seek permission to gain control over such weapons.

And yet Resolution 2231 establishes a Procurement Working Group to exactly expedite approval of Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons specifically related goods, services and technologies; inventories such as nuclear weapons specific: "... _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions written or recorded on other media or devices such as disk, tape, read-only memories_ ;" items that might not be found on the internet – this is most reasonably construed as being in violation of the NPT.

Iran is to be given permission to take complete unmonitored control of these acquisitions as of 18 October 2025; and as of 18 October 2030 Iran may cast or form highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium alloys into whatever configurations it chooses. This activity is unmonitored by any independent agency. There is no restriction against Iran forming weapons grade alloys into configurations suitable for exciting a fissile nuclear chain reaction in a warhead.

The Security Council in its Resolution 2231 offers no explanation for its pressing need to arm a non-nuclear-weapon State with nuclear weapons capacity. Instead it flatly declares:

" _Affirming_ that full implementation of the JCPOA will contribute to building confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme,"

So which one is it? Is Resolution 2231 a promise that the United Nations Security Council will guarantee that the non-nuclear-weapon State – the Government of Iran – is prevented from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon; or is Resolution 2231 a timeline schedule under which the Security Council guarantees to the ministers of the Government of Iran that the Council will promote and expedite the transfer of nuclear weapons associated systems, goods, and services to Iran as the very text of the resolution itself asserts?

There is no middle ground between these two propositions. The text of Resolution 2231 is the document declaring that provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 have mandated that the agencies of offices of the United Nations Security Council , in the manifestation of the Procurement Working Group, facilitate and expedite the means to manufacture nuclear weapons to Iran (that among other things).

So far, from 17 November 2016, nine lots of nuclear weapons related systems have been approved by the Security Council for transfer to Iran.

The ludicrous, specious statement of the Security Council asserting that the "... _full implementation of the JCPOA will contribute to building confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme_..." is sneering mockery, a construction formulated by politicians who condescend to place bets that people and governments are perhaps too lazy to read what the politicians responsible for Resolution 2231 have written.

* * * * *

Annex A: JCPOA of United Nations Security Council 2231 establishes a Security Council sponsored bureaucracy given the explicit mandate, by a Security Council which doesn't have such a mandate, to expedite transfers to Iran of specified nuclear weapons associated inventories.

The foreword to _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ only touches upon this, informing the reader of the problem and indicating that detailed discussion and explanation is forthcoming in the body of the writing of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_.

The very mandate of the Procurement Working Group to transfer nuclear weapons technologies, and Iran's negotiation for and acceptance of this concession – both of these can be taken as egregious violations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, otherwise known as the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT is often construed as a peremptory norm of general international law from which no derogation is permitted.

* * * * *

The concept of peremptory norm of general international law, from which no derogation can be made or assumed, is introduced in the foreword of Security Council _Permit to Bedlam_.

Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties is presented in the Brief Foreword of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_. That Article 53 defines the concept of "peremptory norm of general international law from which no derogation is permitted," and declares that international agreements in violation of peremptory norm of general international law are automatically void upon conclusion – meaning void at the point when final signature is placed on the page. Following is the text of Article 53:

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

*PART V. INVALIDITY, TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

*SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

_Article 53_. Treaties Conflicting With a  
Peremptory Norm of General International Law ("Jus Cogens")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

Aspects of this will be examined more fully in the course of the writing.

* * * * *

The Foreword also touches on and describes to some extent obvious political ruses undertaken in the Security Council's promotion of the resolution, and also undertaken by the Obama administration's promotion of same.

An example of a ruse on the part of the Obama administration – the administration never did transmit the authentic text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015) to the 114th Congress as required by law; and nevertheless, the Obama administration pretended, and convinced most of the U.S. national media that it had. (It is amazing how easily proven is the fact that Barack Obama did not transmit the authentic text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 to the Congress. This ruse is examined in one of the chapters of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_.)

In general, the section " _A Brief Foreword_ " is an introduction to what will be documented and discussed in the body of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_. The writing is not just about the approvals of the weapons transfers themselves. The writing is as much about the politics and intrigues undertaken in support of these transfers. The writing also hopes to give a sense that the variety and diversity of aspects relating to this whole mess may be more surprisingly complex then these might at first have appeared.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

Security Council Permit to Bedlam

*Chapter I - Notice

1st Portion – Opening a Weapons Market

Part A – Some Basic Parameters of the E3/EU+3 Iran Arrangement

This Part A of the first Portion of Chapter I, documents that it was the Obama administration, the United States, that deposited the draft proposal, the resolution endorsing the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel JCPOA arrangement with the Security Council on 17 July 2015. [The E3/EU+3 is comprised of the U.S., U.K. Russia, Germany, France and China.]

This part also documents, as a small point, that later, during the term of the Obama administration the Security Council tried to cover that the Security Council resolution originated in the United States. This writing notes that the Security Council's feeble attempt at doing so is thwarted by attentive human rights groups who, like this writing, and independently of this writing – maintained the documentary evidence of the origins of the draft proposal for record; regardless of the Obama-era Security Council's lame (paranoid?) attempt to erase this record from public view.

Part A presents the meeting notes of the 20 July 205 vote of the Security Council undertaken to accept the Obama administration's draft proposal as United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015). The meeting notes verify that none of the Parties to the vote had glanced at the draft resolution before the vote was taken. This is important as it demonstrates that the vote undertaken did not come close to fulfilling the requirements of Article 26 of the Charter of the United Nations. Part A identifies Article 26 and examines the significance of it as pertaining to any Security Council resolution which has anything to do with arms control issues. The Article declares the following:

Charter of the United Nations

*CHAPTER V: THE SECURITY COUNCIL

FUNCTIONS and POWERS

Article 26

In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 47, plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.

There can be no question Resolution 2231, through its provisions expediting Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies and services – must be most reasonably understood as the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments (or de-regulation of armaments). Nevertheless, the five permanent Member States of the Security Council authors of the resolution did not allow for a required meeting which would include the entire body of the Security Council, including the non-permanent members of the Council along with the Military staff committee.

Evidently the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy were concerned that vote on the resolution might turn out so very positively if the non-permanent members of the Council were alerted too soon to the true character of certain provisions contained in Resolution 2231.

As ,mentioned, he resolution itself undertakes to provide for well-defined procedures through which the Security Council will approve Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons associated technologies, goods, and services.

The United Nations Security Council simply does not permit the Security Council to take a spot vote on approving something like such a system of arms de-regulation.

The Charter of the United Nations requires that its own procedures be followed, especially in such a dangerous case. The farcical vote to approve the resolution was a vote taken by a show of hands in the matter of a few seconds, without anyone having read the resolution. Given the absence of the required meeting with the Military Staff Committee; it isn't clear that the resolution can be considered as valid – in that it didn't receive a legitimate vote.

It is submitted in Part A of the writing that not only did the Security Council carry out an incompetent vote which abstained from fulfilling the requirements of Article 26 of the Charter of the United Nations; and that its ludicrously silly incompetent vote was undertaken in support of a document that was probably automatically void upon its conclusion in that the JCPOA explicitly and egregiously violates the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ , otherwise known as the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

* * * * *

Part A introduces the reader to the International Atomic Energy Agency document _Information Circular INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a_.

An understanding of this document is fundamental to realizing the extent of the transfers to Iran of nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies and services that are intended, and have already to some extent been undertaken.

This essential document, JCPOA INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a is a list specifically identifying nuclear weapons related technologies, the transfer of which should be restricted in theory; but if allowed, should only be so allowed under the most careful consideration and control. This comprehensive list was assembled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a warning of what should not be transferred to a non-nuclear-weapon State. Here is how the IAEA describes the purpose of the Agency's having put together their list:

IAEA Information Circular INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a (Date: 13 November 2013);

GUIDELINES FOR TRANSFERS OF NUCLEAR-RELATED DUAL-USE EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED TECHNOLOGY

OBJECTIVE

1. With the objective of averting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and preventing acts of nuclear terrorism, suppliers have had under consideration procedures in relation to the transfer of certain equipment, materials, software, and related technology that could make a major contribution to a "nuclear explosive activity," an "unsafeguarded nuclear fuel-cycle activity" or acts of nuclear terrorism. In this connection, suppliers have agreed on the following principles, common definitions, and an export control list of equipment, materials, software, and related technology. Suppliers intend to implement the Guidelines in accordance with national legislation and relevant international commitments.

The text of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ , Chapter 1; Part A presents substantial excerpts of inventories listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a. To give a sense of what might be found there, here is a brief excerpt: "... _blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions written or recorded on other media or devices such as disk, tape, read-only memories_ ;" This above intelligence inventory is stipulated as specifically nuclear weapons related.

The IAEA doesn't think things like that should simply get handed around – and that seems like a good idea to this writing as well; but the International Atomic Energy Agency clearly foresaw and feared that such inventories might be carelessly handed around; so the Agency assembled its list of inventories that it though should be transferred only under the most careful circumstances.

It's important to note, the International Atomic Energy Agency has no enforcement capabilities in this area, and very little in other areas. If the IAEA thinks something is a bad idea; the Agency can't order nations not to do it – the IAEA is forced to go begging for political leaders to be reasonable – an almost impossible task.

Clearly the Obama-era leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy know about International Atomic Energy Agency cautions. Nevertheless, that group evidently doesn't see eye to eye with the Agency; so the Oligarchy decided in its Resolution 2231 to put INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a to the Oligarchy's own better uses.

The Obama-era leaderships of the five permanent members of the Security Council Oligarchy evidently couldn't think up a better list of nuclear weapons related items not to put up for general distribution, so they decided to use INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a exactly as the guide; the convenient, indispensable shopping list standard, good to have on hand for anyone thinking of great gift ideas for that nuclear weapons development program that needs everything.

The United Nations Security Council invented Procurement Working Group, introduced earlier, is given the mandate that, when Iran is interested in acquiring inventories specifically listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; then the Procurement Working Group is not only to expedite the procurement approval of Iranian acquisition of such inventories; the Procurement Working Group is also given the explicit mandate to keep the International Atomic Energy Agency away from any knowledge of the exact contents of, end-use of, or any end-use location of Iranian procurement of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories.

The United Nations Security Council Procurement Working Group mandate to keep the International Atomic Energy Agency off the premises when the big boys and girls of the Procurement Working Group are closing deals with the Ministers of the Government of Iran regarding acquisition of nuclear weapons associated inventories; that mandate is clearly defined in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and will be thoroughly examined in Chapter I - Part B of the text of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_.

This Security Council interdiction obstructing the IAEA from inspecting or reporting on Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated inventories listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a, prevents the IAEA from properly carrying out its function to prevent "... _diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices_..." (NPT Article III, first clause), and therefore is in violation of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_.

Expressions of the main authors of the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement, the Obama-era leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy; expressions of their wanton disregard and contempt for that treaty, and international treaty in general, are presented and examined throughout the text of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ , and is certainly a feature of the story.

Part A, in its brevity, does not purport to document the mandate of the Procurement Working Group – which is a bit complex. Part A only informs of the existence of the mandate and notes the mandate will be documented and examined in detail in Part B.

This whole Procurement Working Group construction and arrangement is, of course, in utter violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

Part A submits that the establishment, by the Security Council, of a "Procurement Working Group," with its given mandate, is in violation of Articles I and II (the establishing of the Procurement Working Group mandate violates other aspects of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well – those aspects are discussed in other portions of _A U.N. Council's' Bedlam Menace_ ).

Part A introduces excerpts of the list of nuclear weapons related inventories scheduled to be expeditiously transferred to Iran, provided that Iran will pay for these. The excerpts are intended to give the readers some idea of what is intended to be transferred to Iran.

This part also documents that the Security Council confirms that nine transfers to Iran of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories had been approved by the Security Council between 17 November 2016, and mid-June 2017 – and indicates that four more are currently pending in mid-year 2017.

It's all part of the service and lasting contribution this newly renovated and transformed United Nations Security Council provides and intends for humanity.

* * * * *

In order to satisfy a bit of the reader's curiosity, and to give a sense of what's being discussed; here are some excerpts from the INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a list in question:

International Atomic Energy Agency; [information Circular] INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a

Annex – List of Nuclear-Related Dual-Use Equipment, Materials, Software, And Related Technology

ANNEX CONTENTS

5. Test and Measurement Equipment for the Development of Nuclear Explosive Devices

5.B. TEST AND PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT

5.B.1. Flash X-ray generators or pulsed electron accelerators 5 – 1

5.B.2. High-velocity gun systems

5.B.3. High speed cameras and imaging devices

5.B.5. Specialized instrumentation for hydrodynamic experiments

5.B.6. High-speed pulse generators

5.B.7. High explosive containment vessels

5.D. SOFTWARE

5.D.1. "Software" or encryption keys/codes specially designed to enhance or release the performance characteristics of equipment not controlled in Item 5.B.3. so that it meets or exceeds the characteristics specified in Item 5.B.3.

5.D.2. "Software" or encryption keys/codes specially designed to enhance or release the performance characteristics of equipment controlled in Item 5.B.3.

5.E. TECHNOLOGY

5.E.1. "Technology" according to the Technology Controls for the "development", "production" or "use" of equipment, material or "software" specified in 5.A. through 5.D.

6. Components for Nuclear Explosive Devices

6.A. EQUIPMENT, ASSEMBLIES AND COMPONENTS

6.A.1. Detonators and multipoint initiation systems

6.A.2. Firing sets and equivalent high-current pulse generators

6.A.3. Switching devices

6.A.4. Pulse discharge capacitors

6.A.5. Neutron generator systems

6.A.6. Striplines

6.B. TEST AND PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT

6.C. MATERIALS

6.C.1. High explosive substances or mixtures,

6.E. TECHNOLOGY 6 – 4

6.E.1. "Technology" according to the Technology Controls for the "development","production" or "use" of equipment, material or "software"

These are examples of some of the inventory found in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; but to understand a little of what is meant by the above we must look at some definitions:

IAEA Information Circular INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a (Date: 13 November 2013) ;

DEFINITIONS

"Development" --

is related to all phases before "production" such as:

• design

• design research

• design analysis

• design concepts

• assembly and testing of prototypes

• pilot production schemes

• design data

• process of transforming design data into a product

• configuration design

• integration design

• layouts

"Production" --

means all production phases such as:

• construction

• production engineering

• manufacture

• integration

• assembly (mounting)

• inspection

• testing

• quality assurance

"Technical assistance" --

"Technical assistance" may take forms such as: instruction, skills, training, working knowledge, consulting services.

Note: "Technical assistance" may involve transfer of "technical data".

"Technical data" --

"Technical data" may take forms such as blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions written or recorded on other media or devices such as disk, tape, read-only memories.

"Technology" --

means specific information required for the "development", "production", or "use" of any item contained in the List. This information may take the form of "technical data" or "technical assistance".

What the above is telling us is that the inventories to be dispensed to Iran do not merely consist of goods associated with the development of nuclear weapons; but also services and technical know-how, including nuclear weapons related engineering designs and specifications, manuals and instructions – this also may be acquired by Iran, for the benefit of the development its exclusively peaceful nuclear energy program.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

*Chapter I - Notice

1st Portion – Opening a Weapons Market

Part B – [Stipulated Exact Implementation Timelines for  
Scheduled Weapons Transactions](tmp_af910092633df64ff6d6057981ccde12_IOsHQf.ch.fixed.fc.tidied.stylehacked.xfixed_split_001.html#ref_C01_1_B)

This part of the writing documents and confirms that there are two established timelines for United Nations Security Council scheduled transfers to Iran of conventional, ballistic, and nuclear weapons systems, technologies and materials established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015).

The two schedules are necessarily mutually complimentary, and the details of how these procedures are to be enacted are presented from the text of Resolution 2231 itself.

This part reiterates a recital of nuclear weapons associated inventories intended for Iran; and includes, as well, a fairly comprehensive list of ballistic missile associated technologies – including advanced guidance systems, cruise missile and stealth technologies from the west – that are to be made available to Iran under the auspices of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, the renamed complete E3/EU+3 Iran arrangement negotiated primarily between the United States administration Barack Obama and the Ministers of the Government of Iran.

International definition of the meaning of "control over nuclear weapons" is cited and documented with letters from some of the negotiators of the treaty themselves; these give supplementary insight into the intentions of the framers of the treaty. Further aspects of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) are documented and explained.

This part also documents in further detail that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is purposefully excluded, by the United Nations Security Council, through the machinery of the Procurement Working Group, from reviewing any aspect of Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons associated technology listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a.

This information, of course, is all obtained from the text of Resolution 2231 itself; the most reliable and unarguably indisputable, irrefutable, primary source. No need to try and uncover some secret classified source – it's all out in the open for anyone to read.

The Resolution 2231 prohibition against IAEA examination, or review, or knowledge of Iranian nuclear weapons acquisition directly infringes upon the mandate of the IAEA to prevent "... _diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices_..." (NPT Article III, first clause).

This adventure conducted under the Security Council edict is one among many of the attempts, within Resolution 2231, to assert its pretensions to an authority that has never been granted by any commission from the Charter of the United Nations.

The five permanent Member States of the Security Council pretense that the United Nations Security Council has any authority to violate treaty is a contrivance that disdains the Charter of the United Nations and challenges any restraints the Charter of the United Nations attempts to impose upon any of the pretended authorities or immunities the Security Council asserts for itself to the public. This challenge the United Nations Security Council makes to the authority of the Charter of the United Nations will most assuredly lose when the Council's public spectacle of mischief is brought before the International Court of Justice; which it will have to be.

The tendency of the Security Council and the U.S. Obama administration – to defy the Charter of the United Nations and its authority to impose restraints upon the Security Council; restraints agreed upon by all signatory Member States, Parties to the Charter of the United Nations; the Charter which has established and guaranteed to all Member States that the United Nations Security Council has agreed to and will abide by the restraints imposed on it;

This betrayal by the Obama-era leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy to suddenly disdain those restraints; this derision of the Charter of the United Nations is absolutely fundamental and necessary to the Oligarchy if it is to carry out its exploit of using the facilities and resources of the United Nations as a staging ground for assisting a non-nuclear-weapon State in its aspiration to acquire nuclear weapons associated technologies, goods and services.

SECURITY COUNCIL PROCUREMENT WORKING GROUP procedures are documented in great detail in this Part B; the structure of the "Procurement Process" through which Iran will acquire its domestic means to manufacture nuclear weapons under the aegis and protection of the United Nations are examined.

Once the Procurement Working Group has decided upon approval of a transfer of nuclear weapons related systems, goods, or services to Iran – it is almost impossible for the Security Council as a whole to prevent this transfer; the Resolution 2231 mechanism arranging for the near impossibility of overriding a Procurement Working Group endorsement; the mechanism making it almost impossible to override a Procurement Working Group endorsement is documented, explained and clarified.

Part B hints at, but does not detail the legal implications of investing a group of U.N. flunky bureaucrats with the power to make judicial determinations as to when or when it is not appropriate to violate international treaty in favor of transferring weapons of mass destruction technologies to the non-nuclear-weapon State of Iran; the transfer of which effectively could end up giving the non-nuclear-weapon State of Iran the discretion to threaten or commit mass murder at chance inclination.

That aspect of this Resolution 2231 charade turned shaming abomination will be examined in further sections and chapters.

AFTER APPROXIMATELY a fifteen year period, on 18 October 2030 to be precise; Iran is given United Nations permission to acquire highly enriched, weapons grade uranium 235 and, if it so chooses, weapons grade plutonium.

Iran is also given permission to fashion unsupervised, weapons grade radioactive metal alloys into whatever configuration desired. Resolution 2231 does not stipulate that Iran may not configure weapons grade fissile materials into forms suitable for use in exciting a nuclear chain reaction within a fissile, implosion styled, nuclear warhead.

This is a form of assistance towards the development of nuclear weapons capacity that may be found by the International Court of Justice to be prohibited by international treaty and in violation of peremptory norm of general international law.

* * * * *

After an examination of the transfer to Iran of the means to manufacture fissile nuclear weapons; Part B documents and details conventional weapons transfers to Iran – including allowing Iran to pay for procurements of advanced stealth technologies and associated materials, facilities support, and what-not; as well as advanced guidance systems – re-entry systems, cruise missile systems, UAV systems – the list of inventories goes on and is presented in Part B,

The Security Council apparently would like it to be publicly accepted that all of this expenditure of effort and accommodation in the service of the transfer of nuclear weapons capacity should seem to some as justified because the Security Council is on record as having asserted that its agreement with Iran is in support of an exclusively peaceful nuclear energy development program:

" _Affirming_ that full implementation of the JCPOA will contribute to building confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme,"

The style of contemptuous, arrogant, insolent mockery that is expressed by the authors of Resolution 2231m establishing a Procurement Working Group dedicated to expediting the transfer of nuclear weapons capacity to a non-nuclear-weapon State is not confined to the one insulting declaration.

_Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ confirms throughout the writing that such condescending falsehood is a characteristic found throughout the text of Resolution 2231 as presented to the public by the leaderships of the Obama-era five permanent Member States of the Security Council aggregate Oligarchy.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

*Chapter I - Notice

1st Portion – Opening a Weapons Market

Part C – A Quick Primer on IAEA Inspections of Iranian Mining and Milling Sites

This section documents and explains that, despite unsupported claims to the contrary, the Obama administration had never negotiated any kind of deal where there would be ongoing International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of uranium mining or milling sites in Iran.

There is not a single mention, within Resolution 2231, or its Annex A: JCPOA, of any inspection of any mining or milling operation, nor is there even any mention of any uranium mining or milling site in Iran at all.

Furthermore, the _IAEA / Iran Safeguards agreement_ , under Article 33, states clearly that mining and milling operations are exempt from safeguards as follows:

"Safeguards under this Agreement shall not apply to material in mining or ore processing activities."

Had Resolution 2231 required Iran to adopt the IAEA Additional Protocol, then the IAEA would have a legal right to conduct some regular, routine on-site inspection of Iranian mining and milling sites and operations. Instead, the IAEA is dependent on whatever reports Iran hands it pertaining to mining and milling production outputs; and is furnished with no independent means to verify these reports on its own.

However, unlike false claims made by some supporters of Obama's "Iran Deal," there is nothing in the resolution that requires the Iranian Parliament, the Majlis, to accept the Additional Protocol, and nothing in the resolution that subsequently requires the Iranian Government to ultimately ratify the Protocol.

The Majlis is only required to formally examine the Additional Protocol; and then only after eight years – on JCPOA Transition Day. This diplomatic game playing showmanship is even cheaper than the play-acted vote taken by the Security Council on 20 July 2015. And Iran gets its promised assistance from the Security Council in sorting out its nuclear weapons capacity associated needs regardless of what it decides about the Additional Protocol.

Already nine of procurement packages have been approved by the United Nations in this Iranian project; and we are still only in the early stages – the Majlis won't be looking at that Additional Protocol for several more years.

IRAN DID AGREE to "Provisional" adoption of the IAEA Additional Protocol. Iranian "Provisional" adoption of the IAEA Additional Protocol is a meaningless political gesture. This Part C gives a summary overview of Iranian obstructions of IAEA inspections attempted during in the course of the first decade of this century - when Iran had previously "Provisionally" adopted the protocol.

Iranian refusal to cooperate with the IAEA then acting under the auspices of the "Provisional Additional Protocol;" those obstructions were a major factor in eventually bringing on the rigorous sanctions schedule subsequently imposed upon Iran.

The word "Provisional" in the phrase "Provisional application of the Additional Protocol" effectively signifies that Iranian compliance with the Provisional Additional Protocol is completely voluntary. If Iran doesn't feel like complying with an IAEA request for an on-site inspection; it doesn't have to. It seems highly unlikely that, at this point, the IAEA would complain about that to a Security Council which has already prohibited that Agency from examining any aspect of the nuclear weapons associated transactions expedited by the Procurement Working Group of the Security Council itself.

According to ongoing IAEA reports, the most recent dated 2 June 2017 as of the time of this writing, there has not been a single IAEA on-site inspection of any of these operations since the signing of the JCPOA. The most recent IAEA review of any mining or milling site in Iran was sometime in May, 2014. This is documented in this Part C.

The Obama-era, post Obama-era United Nations Security Council, with the assurances that its multiple egregious weapons concessions to Iran, is most reasonably evaluated as not convincing when it asserts that it affirms that: "...i _mplementation of the JCPOA will contribute to building confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme_."

If it is understood generally that the Obama-era, post Obama-era Security Council is not exactly to be considered as the credible good team; is not in any way to be considered as a trustworthy entity, the Council shouldn't be too surprised if that kind of general, world-wide recognition for, and reaction to the group's mischief should come to pass.

* * * * *

It is important – if choosing to read through the IAEA / Iran Safeguards Agreement – that one is aware of the technical definition of the word "facility" or "facilities" as applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This definition – although somewhat long and complex, is provided and explained in this section of the text of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ – _A Quick Primer on IAEA Inspections of Iranian Mining and Milling Sites_.

It is important to understand that the terminology "Facility or "Facilities" is a technical term with a well-defined meaning so that, when reading the text of Resolution 2231, the reader understands and does not misconstrue that the word "facility" refers to mining or milling sites or other housings of operations not falling under the technical definition of the term. This section of Security Council Permit to _Bedlam_ goes into detail about that aspect
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

*Chapter I - Notice

1st Portion – Opening a Weapons Market

Part D – Other Essential Treaties to Ignore & Laws to Terminate

Part D introduces two more treaties that are of importance to this writing: the _International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism_ and the _International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings_.

Both were signed for on behalf of the United States by President William J. Clinton; and, after Senate near unanimous approval, both were subsequently signed and ratified, by President George W. Bush, and therefore defined under Article VI of the United States Constitution; as made and recognized under the Authority of the United States, as parts of the supreme Law of the Land.

The purpose of these two treaties is to give legal basis for combating both the financing of terrorism, and the acts and conspiracies surrounding assassination and destruction of property by political acts of terror.

Both Treaties stipulate words to the effect that each State Party to the Treaty will enact laws to enable recognized legal of the various jurisdictions to enforce the edicts of those treaties.

The Congress of the United States (not the 114th Congress) eventually got around to developing statutes derived from these two treaties.

Evidently, some of these U.S. statutes enacted were deemed offensive to Iranian negotiators; so perhaps in the interests of appeasement, the Obama administration negotiated to have elements of these statutes, designed to combat terror, terminated or dismantled. Barack Obama, vaunted as a great scholar of the United States Constitution, somehow got it all mixed up.

He negotiated with the Ministers of the Government of Iran to have U.S. statutes altered. Actually, the Iranian Ministers, through no fault of their own, don't have any authority to change or terminate U.S. Statute.

Our confused child-of-woe Obama seemed to have mislaid his homework. Obama wanted to change U.S. Statute; but he negotiated with the wrong department when he tried to do that; Obama should have been negotiating with the Congress to get that piece of business accomplished.

But Obama despised the 114th Congress to such dramatic effect as to make a public spectacle of what a little spoiled little cry-baby brat he really could be at times; he simply couldn't even bring himself to transmit to Congress the authentic text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (this purposeful omission is oh-so-easily documented and proven in the text of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ ; Chapter I; Part E – _Concealing the Source of a Security Council Sponsored Potential Arms Race_ ).

Obama, along with the cronies of his administration, might have thought, and certainly had promoted the idea that because he had negotiated something, and that something was accepted by the Security Council, then everything in that something is automatically international law superseding previous international law; and that his negotiation represents a new international order of things which the United States must abide by. Indeed, Obama and his crony authors of the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel membership had it written into their Resolution 2231 [8th paragraph of the opening remarks] this following absurd little prank:

"Underscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council's decisions,"

Of course Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations doesn't say that. If you follow that statement through to its logical conclusion than any resolution passed by the Security Council would automatically have the power to supersede treaty, the Charter of the United Nations, and international law. It would be if the Security Council were to pass a resolution that set up a timeline to transfer nuclear weapons capacity to a non-nuclear-weapon State in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Charter of the United Nations, and international law – then everyone would have to accept that because the Charter of the United Nations gives the United Nations Security Council the mandate to violate the Charter at will.

It's ridiculous, nobody would be silly enough to think that the framers of the Charter of the United Nations would place an article in the Charter that would say that international law could be overridden at any time – such a statement would be incongruous and would disqualify the Charter of the United Nations as recognizably a logical legal document.

It's just too silly – OH! But Wait!! – that's just what the Obama-era leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy are telling people! Why is it that few are surprised that these twits love to make up stories?

This is one of the reasons for why the Charter of the United Nations and humanity recognize the need for the International Court of Justice to help clarify that the sad fantasies with which leaders like Barack Obama want so much to bully the public with; in order to get weapons deal across. Upon examination and review of these moronic assertions and precepts of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy authors of the resolution, the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement, these might not look like much in Court.

It is true that some of the leaderships of some of these countries might be able to stick a pistol in the mouth of the people and suggest and ask something like: "Now are you going to be nice and shut up and pay attention, or am I going to have to pull the trigger?"

Rough stuff like that is not so easy to pull off in open Court however – stuff like that is generally considered bad Court etiquette; the Judges tend to frown on that sort of thing.

If the Oligarchy can't rely on tactics of mendacity and pressure – the Oligarchy might be disappointed to find that its resolution might get into real trouble in Court.

The JCPOA, on account of all of its egregious violations of peremptory norm of general international law from which no derogation is permitted; and also because of its on-going, and intended to be on-going violations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; is only awaiting the eventual confirmation by the Court that the status of the JCPOA and Resolution 2231 both is as of being void upon conclusion of the JCPOA on 14 July 2015 - when the final signature was fixed on the page in Vienna. – and as not having received a competent vote in the Security Council. These two disqualifying features could only be the beginning of a long list of complaints that would be leveled against the resolution.

Although the potentiality of the proceeding before the Court lies dormant for now – the resting force supporting this dormant process is activated and comes into play when an association of Member States, Party to the NPT, brings the case before the International Court of Justice; so that the actions and excesses of Security Council may receive full and proper examination, review, and attention.

* * * * *

Part D gives examples, from the text of the JCPOA, of these attempts by the Obama administration to use his negotiation with the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel as some sort of justification for altering United States statute.

One of the problems for the Obama administration at that time, and the ghost of the Obama administration now – and those current political followers of the pro-nuclear weapons proliferation measures established by the Obama administration – is that a President does not have any constitutional authority to by himself alter United States law.

Not even a president's promise given to a foreign Prince or potentate has any authority to change U.S. statute. Such an empty promise, made by a President, at best can only serve to embarrass the United States, and also the President who would make such an inflated boast.

Nevertheless, Barack Obama did imply publicly that a U.S. president might have such authority; and the text of the product of his negotiation confirms Obama's willingness to falsely assume such authority as it orders the United States to terminate or alter some of its laws designed to prohibit and obstruct and punish support for the arming of terrorist activities.

* * * * *

An extended excerpt of the opinion of the Court, handed down by United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) – decided so early in the history of the United States – is presented in Part D.

In a fundamentally binding decision, the Court determined, and instructs, that it is the United States Constitution that is the supreme Law of the Land. Consequentially, a president's attempt to use a foreign negotiation to enact unconstitutional "Presidential" legislation cannot be used as a justification for violating Treaty or changing U.S. Law.

A president's determinations, or promises to a foreign Prince, or attempts to use a foreign negotiation to alter legislation, to unilaterally legislate by any ruse pretending that a negotiation with a foreign Prince can be used to blackmail Congress into changing U.S. law, or violating international treaty; no promise to a foreign Prince can necessarily hold any sway over the Constitution itself; nor over any ordinary statute – unless the Congress is consulted and agrees to change statute in order to accommodate the negotiation.

Although the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison does not directly address the issue of foreign negotiation – a later portion of this writing presents a Supreme Court decision which directly and thoroughly rebukes any notion held by a president, the Congress, elements of the news media, or portions of the electorate, concerning a president's authority to use negotiation as an excuse to unilaterally define, create, or terminate United States statue or obligation to treaty.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

*Chapter I – Notice

1st Portion – Opening a Weapons Market

Part E – [Concealing the Source of a Security Council Sponsored  
Potential Arms Race](tmp_af910092633df64ff6d6057981ccde12_IOsHQf.ch.fixed.fc.tidied.stylehacked.xfixed_split_001.html#ref_C01_1_E)

In this Part E we learn to our surprise that President Barack Obama never did transmit United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 to the Congress as was required by U.S. Statute. On 22 May 2015 Barack Obama signed into law the " _Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015_ ;" which required the President, within five Calendar Day of reaching agreement with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran; to transmit that agreement to appropriate committees in Congress;

Resolution 2231, accepted by the United Nations Security Council on 20 July 2015, is the ultimate and most important multilateral agreement reached between the U.S. and Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran.

Barack Obama never did send this along. Barack Obama would successfully pretend the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (which he had transmitted) is the entire arrangement that was accepted by the Security Council on 20 July 2015, which it is not. The JCPOA is only a part of the whole lists of weapons concessions Barack Obama made to Iran in order to accomplish his "historical" diplomatic breakthrough which uses the United Nations as the staging area for expediting Iran acquisitions of nuclear weapons capacity, nuclear weapons associated technologies goods and services, on an ongoing basis.

We also learn in Part E that not one of those illustrious politicians, Republican or Democrat, infesting either House of the 114th Congress, ever bothered to look into, or publicly comment on, the matter of the disappeared United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 – the fact that the expected document never showed up on the doorstep of the Congress, begging for attention.

As it would turn out, Obama's carrying out this deception which completely fooled what can only be identified as an inattentive, disinterested and lethargic Congress; wasn't a particularly complicated process;

All it took was a little political stonewalling over the period of a few weeks – an exercising of a pretense that the Congress had already been given what had been requested of the Executive department; and it took taking tawdry advantage of the opportunity on hand – having at the President's disposal what must be thought of as an indolent, profoundly negligent 114th Congress ripe to be completely tricked into believing that Barack Obama had transmitted to it timely the authentic text of the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement as accepted by the United Nations Security Council – even though the Obama administration had never done anything of the sort.

* * * * *

As mentioned, E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel authors United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, vaunted, in the text of their accomplishment; that their resolution was designed to affirm the ongoing exclusively peaceful nature of the Security Council Iranian nuclear development project.

The body of the text the resolution provides for other than what its own publicity proclaims. The text of Resolution 2231 testifies to, reveals, and affirms that the Security Council recommendation 2231 organizes and decrees a U.N. sponsored procedure through which Iranian interests in the acquisition of the designated means to manufacture fissile nuclear are to be promoted and expedited by the United Nations Security Council using the physical premises and resources of the United Nations as a staging ground supporting and sustaining this effort.

Not every provision contained in Resolution 2231 consists of a violation of the NPT. However, the multitude of provisions contained within Resolution 2231 which do so egregiously violate the treaty are the contributing factors in what might soon be found by the International Court of Justice as voiding the entire Security Council recommendation 2231.

* * * * *

This Part of Chapter I; Part E of this writing, touches upon one among the series of cases classified under the Nuernberg Trials known as the _United States of America vs. Josef Altstoetter, et al._ group of trials.

The particular case touched upon here is " _The Justice Case_ ;" Justice James Tenney Brand (U.S.) presiding over the tribunal of Judges determining the opinion of the Court.

This case considered the culpability of NAZI Jurists who were responsible for either instigating, or handing out, untold thousands of Death Warrants under the NAZI regime.

Justice Brand, in handing down the opinion of the Court in this Case, admonished the following:

"...The person who persuades another to commit murder, the person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of its commission, and the person who pulls the trigger are all principals or accessories to the crime."

"The Justice Case" is relevant to this writing in that the Security Council, in expediting to Iran the means to manufacture nuclear weapons in violation of international treaty; can only most reasonably be understood as furnishing Iran the Lethal Weapon; along with the discretion to commit or threaten to commit mass murder by choice of opportunity or chance inclination.

* * * * *

From there, Part E observes and examines that the feat accomplished by the five permanent members of the Security Council in negotiating for the transfer of nuclear weapons capacity and nuclear weapons manufacturing capabilities to Iran in violation of international treaty is a direct threat to the Charter of the United Nations itself.

The Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, as stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations' _Preamble_ , and also its Chapter I – _Purposes and Principles_ ; _Articles I_ and _II_ ; these provisions declare that the United Nations is a peacemaking; peacekeeping organization dedicated to, and designed to uphold treaty.

The Charter of the United Nations is a multilateral and constituent treaty which all members States are bound by. Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations requires the Security Council in particular to abide by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations laid out in the Charter's Preamble and Articles 1 and 2. It admonishes that the actions and decisions of the Security Council must adhere to the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, because of the various infringements it makes upon the Charter of the United Nations, most reasonably cannot be construed as having been made under the Charter of the United Nations – it must be taken to Court for a confirmation of its invalidation.

The leadership of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council, in egregiously violating the fundamental premises and promises of the Charter of the United Nations; and using the facilities of the United Nations – both physical and political – to expedite the transfer of the means and the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons to a non-nuclear-weapon State; demands that the international community consider the validity of the Security Council's recommendation;

The outrageous rogue determinations of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 demands, among other things, the international community consider if there is any usefulness or value in allowing a United Nations bureaucracy – the Procurement Working Group, conceived of by the United States, the U.K., Russia, Iran, Germany, France and China – and organized by, sponsored by, and put into practice by the Obama-era leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy;

This outrageous rogue recommendation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 demands the international community consider if there is any usefulness or validity in allowing a body of seven U.N. Flunky Functionaries, one each representing the interests of their respective E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel State sponsors; of allowing this incompetent body to make on-going, case-by-case judicial determinations as to what the NPT is and when it does or does not apply.

This outrageous rogue recommendation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 demands the international community consider if there is any usefulness or validity in allowing this incompetent body of U.N. flunky lackey pawns to subvert the Charter of the United Nations and convert and transform the United Nations into the most menacing international arms-dealing lawless syndicate possibly ever officially opportunistically invented up until this point.

This outrageous rogue recommendation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 demands the international community consider if it's worth it to allow the transformation, currently being carried out by the puppet pawns of the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel; for the evident benefit or arms-dealing interests in the greatest arms dealing nations the world has ever seen: The United States, Russia, China, France, the U.K., and Germany; and for the benefit of the Ministers of the Government of Iran – and to the detriment of the international community and the cohesion, or relevance of the Charter of the United Nations;

This outrageous rogue recommendation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 demands the international community consider if it's worth it to allow the transformation of the Charter of the United Nations into a worthless piece of scrap paper worthy only of effectively ignored by the United Nations Security Council.

The Security Council goes so far, in Resolution 2231, as to assert that anything the Council resolves, all States must accept and carry out:

United States of America: draft resolution July 17, 2015

Underscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council's decisions,

Of course that is not what the real Article 25 declares – the Council's assertion is a complete hoax.

In this Part, Part E of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ , Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations has already been presented:

The Charter of the United Nations;

*CHAPTER V: THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Functions and Powers

Article 24

2. In discharging these [the Security Council's] duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations....

Resolution 2231 fabricates that "... _Member States are obligated... to accept and carry out the Security Council's decisions;_ "

If Article 25 said that, then that would mean that even if the Security Council weren't acting (deciding) in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations; the any decision by the Security Council to violate international treaty and the Charter of the United Nations would be held as taking precedence over both the Charter of the United Nations, from which the Security Council derives its only authority; precedence over international treaty; and precedence over peremptory norm of genera international law from which no derogation can be made – because anything the United Nations Security Council determines must be accepted and carried out regardless of the rules.

Which would mean, among other things, that the law as it is understood can be superseded by the Security Council at whim; and that the Security Council is the judicial body of the Charter of the United Nations with the authority to determine when or when not treaty or law applies;

And it would mean that Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations was just as unreal as anything else in the Charter of the United Nations; the only thing being real would be the whims and passing fancies of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy;

And it would also suggest that effectively the singular Purpose of the United Nations would be to give the leadership of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council something to do with their time; something to keep them interested in and filled with a sense of purpose;

And that the premises, the physical, political facilities and resources of the United Nations are there to serve as a theatrical staging ground and excuse for the five permanent members of the Security Council Oligarchy efforts to bully other nations into submissiveness and into acceptance of whatever role the five permanent members of the Security Council decides to play in dismantling treaty, at whim and expediency, and without a care.

When anyone simply takes a second to think through, even without knowing what Article 25 does say; when anyone actually thinks for a second about the infantile pretense, the childish characterization the geniuses of the Oligarchy make of Article 25 – then one easily recognizes that if the Oligarchy's stupid lie were true, the Charter of the United Nations would be an entirely implausible, unworkable, useless document.

These elite politicians – so impatient and restless and determined to brush off the constraints the Charter of the United Nations puts on their sorry selves – these politicians don't think as far as the obvious; if they weren't given those restraints, they wouldn't have anything to work with – if they aren't told "NO" every time they want to set up flunkies to arrange for ongoing violation of treaty and approve sales of nuclear weapons associated technologies: then there eventually would be no United Nations, and consequentially no U.N. flunkies to order around. Of course the Oligarchy's assertion concerning Article 25 is completely false nonsense:

United States of America: draft resolution July 17, 2015

Underscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council's decisions,

Of course Member States aren't required by the Charter of the United Nations to furnish a non-nuclear-weapon State with the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons just because the Security Council wants it to be so.

Certainly, at present and in the context of Resolution 2231, the Security Council attempts to usurp the kind of authority that demands complete and unquestioning obedience – and if the Security Council could, or is allowed to, then the Charter of the United Nations really will become a useless scrap of paper – Security Council Resolution 2231 therefore does force States to bring the matter before International Court of Justice so that the Court may confirm the JCPOA document as void upon conclusion per Article 53 of the _Vienna Convention on the law of treaties_.

The Charter of the United Nations really will become a useless scrap of paper if the incompetent judicial determinations of the lackey partisans staffing the Procurement Working Group are given any sway – except: the authority of the International Court of Justice is recognized by the Charter; and the ICJ can put a complete a stop to the Security Council's nonsense – and put a halt to the ongoing stream of incompetent, Procurement Working Group puppet pawns' rendering of judicial determinations as to when the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is applicable and when it is not.

It remains for an association of Member States to petition the Court to review and halt and rebuke these idiot extravagances of the Obama-era leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy.

* * * * *

After a fairly detailed discussion in that area, the examination of which was presented so as to give a background for what follows in the latter pages of Part E – the narrative goes on to present the timeline sequence through which the Obama carried out the not very complicated tactics of political ruse successfully undertaken to completely confuse and fool a very disappointingly gullible 114th Congress into believing that the administration had transferred to Congress, the actual text of the "Iran Deal" arrangement accepted by the United Nations Security Council.

The ruse is so surprisingly unsophisticated, and the Obama administration left such a glaring paper trail; that it's very easy to prove what might seem on the face to be an un-provable negative. Part E of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ proves the negative – that Obama did not transmit the authentic text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 to Congress as required by law.

The documentation is easy in its proof. Before United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 is even voted on by the Security Council, Barack Obama's spokesperson John Kirby officially announced to the new media that the White House has transmitted all documentation pertaining to Obama's "Iran Deal" to the Congress.

Some members of Congress protested, suggesting that what was sent could not be everything. On Monday 20 July 2015, the Security Council voted to accept Security Council 2231. The document was officially put into general circulation on that day. This was after John Kirby had officially announced to the news media that the White House had transmitted everything to Congress.

Throughout the week of the 20th there was round and round between Congress and the administration. Some Congresspersons protested, on Tuesday the 21st of July, that there were deals between the IAEA and the Government of Iran that the Congress had not been made privy to. Many in Congress knew that the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, had published, on 14 July 2015, that such "side deals" had been agreed upon. Yukiya Amano outlined the nature of the side details. Many in Congress, partisans for the Obama deal, refused to take note of that. /these partisans would disparage any notion that the Congress should take a look at that or something like it.

In any event, as is detailed in the text of the longer book, _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ , not one of the chuckle-heads in either House of the 114th Congress came to the most common sense conclusion that the White House could not possibly have transmitted everything pertaining to Obama's Iran Deal when the White House said it had because the most central and salient document – the essential document of what would later be agreed upon by the Security Council – did not exist at the time the White House decided it was time to stop transmitting information of Obama's Iran Deal to the Congress.

On Wednesday, the 22nd John Kirby again met with representatives of the news media to confirm that there was nothing more to be sent to the Congress on this issue; that the whole quarrel was essentially a tempest in a tea pot.

The round and round went on for a couple of weeks, roughly until summer vacation for the House of Representatives; and a rather incurious and disinterested 114th Congress never would ask the basic question: Where did that Security Council resolution concerning Obama's Iran Deal go running off to? – This when any member of Congress could have downloaded the document for themselves, and for free, from the Security Council website; yes, but only if any one of the lazy hypocrites had bothered to show the slightest appetite for taking an interest in the issue.

This writing has been through the day by day Congressional record from between 20 July 2015 and the time of the 10 and 11 September 2015, 114th Congressional votes on the "deal" and confirmed that during that time frame there was no transmittal from the White House concerning the Iran Deal received by Congress.

The text of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ provides more detail and exact quotes as to what was said during the episode by different parties to the event.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

*Chapter I - Notice

1st Portion – Opening a Weapons Market

Part F – Gun Play Without Exception

In order to justify their fiasco of a resolution, the five permanent Member States of the Security Council authors of the E3/EU+3 I Iran Cartel agreement invented a fairy-tale story about how an Article of the Charter of the United Nations (Article 25) demands that all States without exception are "obligated" to comply with any decision, any adopted resolution of the Security Council.

United States of America: draft resolution July 17, 2015

Underscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council's decisions,

Of course it's complete nonsense. Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations can't be construed to imply that. A little common sense would inform a person; that if the Security Council invents a resolution that pretends that it is in any way justified in demanding States cooperate with a program to transfer nuclear weapons capacity to a non-nuclear-weapon State in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) – then that resolution is bogus and can't possibly have been made under the authority of the Charter of the United Nations, which doesn't allow the Security Council to violate international treaty or to contemplate violation of international treaty.

Unfortunately there seems to be a pandemic lack of common sense among politicians in this day and age; not just among U.S. politicians (which in any event, goes without saying), but politicians world-wide.

In a later portion of this writing we document how the National Party Government of New Zealand Prime Minister John Key simply jumped on this Security Council fantasy that the Charter of the United Nations somewhere implies that any resolution passed by the Security Council can override the Charter of the United Nations, international treaty, and presumably, is somehow to automatically be recognized as international law.

Article 25 certainly doesn't suggest anything like what Resolution 2231 misconstrues above; the Article cannot be interpreted by an honest person to imply or suggest any such thing.

Part F presents the official Charter of the United Nations text of Article 25 in English, French and Spanish – with the French and Spanish being translated back into English (with connotations noted). In this way, the connotations and denotations of the text are examined comparatively so as to verify that there is no discrepancy of meaning between the Article's representations in the various languages.

Following that, Article 25 is presented in its context with other, related Articles of the Charter of the United Nations. This gives context showing that only a very dishonest group of interpreters could twistedly assert that Article 25 suggests that the Security Council is conferred anything close to the omnipotent authority to make up its own rules and kick aside the Charter of the United Nations, proceed against the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and the integrity of peremptory norm of international law, from which no derogation can be made.

The most influential authors of the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel group, the leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy, evidently had determined that there was nothing to worry about; that any public pronouncement the Oligarchy group made would be immediately accredited by U.N. flunky representatives; sovereign governments – and voting electorates alike.

* * * * *

After an extended discussion, debunking the Security Council's claim to omnipotent authority; Part F proceeds to document to some extent – how effective this falsehood has been in altering the very gullible population serving in the U.N. organization bureaucracy. Sometimes lies have their intended effect; and the five permanent Member States of the Security Council seems to have everyone in the U.N. believing this one; and are willing to unquestioningly go on with the scheme of arming the five permanent members of the Security Council's favored non-nuclear-weapon State with the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Part F goes on to explain, in the context of the previous quote, the other major invention of the Security Council – its other invention asserting the Council's authority to make decisions outside of peremptory norm of general international law, international treaty and the Charter of the United Nations; noting once again that in this period of the history of the United Nations, the U.N. organization bureaucracy seems to have gotten into the habit of simply accepting whatever the Security Council says at face value.

* * * * *

Part F also touches upon an on-going civil war in Yemen current to this writing (already in place for some years preceding and continuing contemporaneous to this writing).

The atrocities carried out in that war include enslavement and induction of children into armed forces for use as battlefield fodder. This crime is associated with the Houthi faction in the war; the group that Iran openly supports – but denies providing with material aid.

There is strong (although not incontrovertible) evidence that Iran is indeed smuggling weapons to the Houthi group. This could be considered a serious infraction as Yemen has, for some time now, been placed under a U.N. arms embargo.

Information presented in Part F indicates that U.N. investigation into the matter has been somewhat unenthusiastic and lethargic – and the Obama administration didn't show particular interest of enthusiasm in publicly following the matter up either.

* * * * *

After introducing the alleged Iranian gun-running activity into Yemen, Part F proceeds with an examination of the JCPOA "Dispute Resolution Mechanism."

The question that could be raised is: what would happen to continuing weapons transfers to Iran provided for in Resolution 2231 if Iran were found to be supplying weapons to the Houthis?

Barack Obama declared in an August 5, 2015 speech presented on the campus of American University:

"If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We won't need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council; America can trigger snap back on our own."

Although it's true that if concerns or discussions about the issue ever got that far, the Security Council could be forced to formulate and vote on a resolution deciding to continue with the lifting of sanctions against Iran despite whatever accusations made.

Once such a resolution was presented for a vote – any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council could vote to veto the resolution and theoretically put an end to sanctions lifting, and thereby reinstate the sanctions against Iran that were in force before Resolution 2231 went into effect. That is the theory.

However, there is a caveat. The JCPOA stipulates that even if the resolution endorsing continuation of Sanctions were vetoed. The Security Council could override the veto by simply by any undefined means; and elect to continue to effectively provide weapons systems to Iran. The entire mechanism is explained in detail in this section.

That; and other fine print in the JCPOA Dispute Resolution Mechanism is discussed in Part F.

* * * * *

Finally, Part F summarizes the writing in _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ up until that point; highlighting that the chaos and destructiveness resulting from the carrying out of the various infractions provided for in the Security Council resolution serve as a real life practical demonstration of the reasoning as to why the Charter of the United Nations never gives the Security Council any pretence or presumption of omnipotent authority.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

*Chapter I - Notice

1st Portion – Opening a Weapons Market

Part G – Glittering Hopes for a Glamorous Arms Trade

Part G features the New Zealand National Party Government of then Prime Minister John Key. The reason for bringing New Zealand into this suspenseful history of international arms trafficking intrigue is to show an example of a Political Party's hasty decision to join in on the world-wide arms hustling business the Security Council attempts to establish in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.

The Congress of the United States can't be presented as an example of that – because no matter how unclear on the JCPOA issue the 114th Congress revealed itself to be (the drama played out in Congress is visited in a later Part of the writing), very fortunately, even a very gullible and lethargic 114th Congress was not sufficiently tricked into voting in favor of the dead-end JCPOA (one of the few compliments this writing allows the 114th Congress).

Contrasting the U.S. Experience, the independently silly-minded National Party Government of Prime Minister John Key swallowed the Security Council bait down like a bag of sugar cookies.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Mr. Murray McCully had chaired the 20 July 2015 7488th meeting of the Security Council, and oversaw the unanimous spot vote of Security Council approval-without-debate acceptance of Resolution 2231.

Following through (perhaps) on the guidance of their Foreign Minister Murray McCully; perhaps soon to be noted as a radical historical footnote of mediocrity – the New Zealand National Party of then Prime Minister John Key has the dubious honor of representing its nation, the Commonwealth Monarchy of New Zealand, as being one of the first to acknowledge that it will willingly and automatically adhere to the nuclear weapons associated transactions bestowed uniquely, by Resolution 2231, on Iran in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

This writing (Part G of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ ) documents that by JCPOA Implementation Day (16 January 2016), when most of the provisions of the JCPOA embodied in Resolution 2231 were to begin to take effect – the National Party of New Zealand had readied and voted in favor, on (15, January 2016), of implementation of a New Zealand Order in Council which would strictly adhere to the weapons transaction guidelines provided for in Resolution 2231; guidelines which defy and are most reasonably understood to be in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (which New Zealand is Party to), and also the _South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty of 6 August 1985_ ; a non-proliferation treaty that many in the United States might not be familiar with, but to which New Zealand is nevertheless also a Party.

Although generally almost all Canadians would immediately understand an Order in Council, much of the United States readership may be unfamiliar with such. This Part G will help to familiarize with it.

The Order in Council issued by the National Party Government of John Key, titled: " _United Nations (Iran—Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) Regulations 2016_ ;" this Order in Council seeks to establish that New Zealand will adhere to the violations of international treaty that the pro-nuclear weapons proliferation Obama-era five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy would like the international community to maintain.

The Order in Council seems to claim justification for ordering the illegitimate violation of international treaty on this point elucidated in the following part of the Order in Council:

[New Zealand] **\- United Nations (Iran—Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) Regulations 2016.**

These regulations are made under section 2 of the United Nations Act 1946—

(b) for the purpose of giving effect to resolution 2231 (2015) of the Security Council of the United Nations, adopted under the United Nations Charter on 20 July 2015.

The above could seem to be a pretty flimsy argument for violating treaty, especially were it to be confirmed by the International Court of Justice that Resolution 2231 was void before even being voted on.

Nevertheless, the narrative of _Part G_ continues on to explain both the New Zealand " _United Nations Act 1946_ " and the U.K. " _United Nations Act 1946_ " from which the New Zealand version is modified.

In the above declaration of the New Zealand National Party Government of Prime Minister John Key speciously, fatuously, and without substantiating grounds, asserts without compromise that Resolution 2231 was adopted under the authority of the Charter of the United Nations: "... _adopted under the United Nations Charter on 20 July 2015_."

The Order in Council, perhaps misconstruing events in its endeavor to formulate a basis for New Zealand Government attempts at engaging in the sport and violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT); declares its stance that the adventure of the Security Council to bring about the advancement of nuclear weapons capacity in a non-nuclear-weapon State is automatically justified under the Charter of the United Nations because any piece of bonehead foolishness that drifts off the desks of the political leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council is automatically recognized as omnipotent, undisputable rule of international law.

The Order in Council does not distinguish between, or take into account that the establishment of an office, along with the given mandate of that Office; does not necessarily mean that every action or decision emerging from the bureaucracy of that Office conforms to the mandate given that Office, or is to be automatically recognized as having been authorized by the Charter under which the Office assumes its authority.

The Order in council of the National government Party of John Key assumes as a starting point that a decree by the Security Council to violate international treaty and the Charter of the United Nations with the objective of advancing the nuclear weapons capabilities of a non-nuclear-weapon State is of greater obligation than upholding the Charter of the United Nations and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

Perhaps it might have been too much work for the then New Zealand National Party Government to make the distinction between the mandate of the Office and the malfeasance of the Office-holder; perhaps it might have been too much work to consider that malfeasance of the Office-holder might very well be understood in the context of the mandate of trust that Office-holder violates. The John Key Order in Council came up with this little gem – repeating:

[New Zealand] **\- United Nations (Iran—Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) Regulations 2016.**

These regulations are made under section 2 of the United Nations Act 1946—

(b) for the purpose of giving effect to resolution 2231 (2015) of the Security Council of the United Nations, adopted under the United Nations Charter on 20 July 2015.

That's it then, it's because of the above mentioned " _section two_ " that New Zealand is now justified in getting into the ongoing activity of violation of international treaty and sportive engagement of rendering assistance to business interests fascinated with supporting the experimental nuclear weapons development project – singular and unique and experimental in that this is the first nuclear weapons development project that has ever been promoted under the auspices of the United Nations (this makes project so interesting) – here's Section 2(b):

[New Zealand] United Nations Act 1946:

2...Power to make regulations to enable effect to be given to Article 41

(2) No regulation made under this Act shall be deemed to be invalid because it deals with any matter already provided for by any Act, or because of any repugnancy to any Act.

Too bad for any vaunted claim of genius and quick perception which might be thought to be characteristic of the wizardly scholars of the remarkable New Zealand National Party. The rebuke to the National Party's defense and rationale for violating international treaty is presented in the very defense that group postured; that rebuke is staring them right in the face.

The article that the New Zealand National Party might still be expecting to absolve the Order in Council states: "... _No regulation made under this Act shall be deemed to be invalid... because of any repugnancy to any Act_."

John Key's Order in Council is premised on the immunities granted to an Order in Council that if such an Order in Council based on _United Nations Act 1946_ is repugnant to what would be another, superseding [New Zealand] Act – the Order would nevertheless stand.

However, the scholarship and understanding that found employment with the National Party somehow failed to study hard enough, perhaps in its youth, to make the distinction that the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, the NPT, the titled _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ – is not a New Zealand Act.

It is an international treaty that New Zealand has signed on to and promised the rest of the international community that it will abide by. New Zealand has promised, on its own credibility, that it would not engage in the recreational sport of violating treaty with the objective of rendering aid and assistance to the Officers, the Agents, of the politicians and political leadership of the Security Council in order that these entities may carry on in their project dedicated to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

New Zealand is not just committed by signature to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. New Zealand has also committed itself regionally to the _South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty_ of August 1985 which New Zealand, another nuclear non-proliferation treaty that the National Party Government, along with the remainder of New Zealand, is also a Party to; and has been committed to violate by the National Party Government of now gone Prime Minister John Key.

And New Zealand is also a signatory to the Treaty of the Charter of the United Nations, which, yes, is also a treaty.

New Zealand is committed to that treaty; not to the whims of the leaderships of the Obama-era five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy who are given no commission under the Treaty of the Charter of the United Nations to persuade, pressure or commit Member States to violate international treaties such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) for any reason, and certainly not for reason of supporting a project determined to enable a non-nuclear-weapon State with nuclear weapons capacity.

Reviewing the New Zealand versions of the _United Nations Act 1946_

[New Zealand] United Nations Act 1946:

2...Power to make regulations to enable effect to be given to Article 41

(2) No regulation made under this Act shall be deemed to be invalid because it deals with any matter already provided for by any Act, or because of any repugnancy to any Act.

There it is, plain as day – the John Key Government's Order in Council considers itself immune from repudiation by any other standing Act. The United Nations Act 1946 does not protect the Order in Council from invalidation because of its repugnancy to international treaty, and it can be found to be deeply repugnant to at least the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Order in Council of the New Zealand National Party of John Key might be easily find itself tossed out on its ear by the incoming administration of another New Zealand political party.

This willingness of the Government of New Zealand to betray New Zealand's international commitment to oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a matter of international interest.

Previously, New Zealand financial markets might have seemed a safe investment area. However, with New Zealand's announcement that it will violate international treaty in order to join in with what might be a developing international trend in the industry of lawless racketeering and arms trafficking of nuclear weapons; financial risk investment portfolios and profiles might find themselves reassessed by some analysts on any account having to do with that Commonwealth Nation.

It is possibly highly unlikely that any pickled prickly New Zealand Political Party can get out of that circumstance just as easily as declaring that their Order in Council to promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons capacity is immune from attack due to an essential "... _repugnancy to any Act_...;" when, indeed, the John Key Order in Council may very well be utterly curtailed at any time as repugnant to treaty. Any investments in the venture of relying on any suggestion put forth by the JCPOA, which could easily be found by the Court as being void upon conclusion; any investment on any project involving a contract that could easily be superseded and voided by and dissolved by a predictable ruling handed down from the International Court of Justice.

Were such hasty investments to vanish in the blink of an eye; the losses hobbling the hasty investors could open the door to other investment opportunities for competitors to take advantage of; investors who did not lose assets engaging the highly dubious risk.

The Security Council has declared, in effect, by its Resolution 2231 that all States without exception are to on some level cooperate with (and even perhaps profit from) this transition from a world that once viewed the proliferation of nuclear weapons as insanity; into a world where the United Nations agrees with the leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy that the proliferation of nuclear weapons – the furnishing of the lethal weapon – the furnishing of that to a known belligerent, or to any non-nuclear-weapon State, might not be such a bad idea after all; and that resources of the United Nations are to be made available in promoting such a scheme – and that the greatest diversion for armaments from the world's human and economic resources might, in fact, might be found to bring about a higher standard of living for some few lucky people.

* * * * *

It might be borne in mind that the scheme might not stand a chance as not all nations might be so willing, as evidently the National Party of Prime Minister John Key was, to fall into step and submit, on their own part, to agree to commit their own resources to the planning and carrying out, on an ongoing basis, persistent violation of international treaty as decreed and detailed in Resolution 2231 for the benefit of any entrenched arms-dealing interests of the six great arms exporting nations; and for the benefit of the Ministers of the Government of Iran – and to the detriment of the remainder of the international community and humanity.

It may very well be surmised that there could be a willing coalition of nations out there in the world that might band together and petition the International Court of Justice regarding a great many menacing concerns arising from the Obama-era Security Council's blatant publicly promoted malfeasance and abuse of office.

A general complaint might be forthcoming and brought before the International Court of Justice that this Resolution 2231 is all about active betrayal, in practice, of _Charter of the United Nations'_ restraints on belligerence between nations; restraints which have been reasonably agreed to by those signatory Member States of the United Nations;

Those Nations which might still maintain loyalty to the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations might care to petition the International Court of Justice that the restrains imposed and accepted should not be so hastily abandoned at the expedient whim of the Security Council – this regardless of those signatories which would renounce their loyalty to those Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations in favor of adhering to and advancing the antics of the Obama-era five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy.

* * * * *

Following a discussion of the John Key nuclear weapons proliferation related Order in Council – Part G continues to explain and confer that in earlier years, the people of New Zealand were steadfast against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and had committed New Zealand not only to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; but also to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty of 6 August 1985. Part G remembers this; and then presents a narrative of an interesting and entertaining action that took place at one time, involving the U.S. Navy and some protesting local citizenry in New Zealand; an action that suggests that peoples of New Zealand are not all in favor of promoting the proliferation of nuclear weapons – or of New Zealand being used as a financial staging area for such.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

*Chapter I - Notice

2nd Portion – Big Town; Best Dirty Politics

Part A – Scrambling for Internet Celebrity and Identity

Part A of the 2nd Portion of Chapter I (Scrambling for Internet Celebrity and Identity) documents that the Obama did establish a series of web-pages within which the Obama administration explicitly declares that the Joint comprehensive Plan of Action signed in Vienna on 14 July 2015 is the agreed upon "Iran deal."

Evidently, the public is targeted as the website's intended victim. On this website, the Obama administration claims about the JCPOA:

'It's an historic deal — a promise fulfilled. It blocks every possible pathway Iran could use to build a nuclear bomb while ensuring — through a comprehensive, intrusive, and unprecedented verification and transparency regime — that Iran's nuclear program remains exclusively peaceful moving forward.

**'It's called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),** and it's important that everyone understands exactly what's in this deal and how it'll work. That is why we have provided all 159 pages of the JCPOA here with commentary from the people who negotiated it and will help implement it...

With this deal, we eliminate the threat of a nuclear armed Iran, strengthening our own national security and that of our allies in the region, including Israel. Without it, we risk another conflict in the Middle East. Without it, we risk war."

" _It's called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)_ ;" that is the explicit statement intended to mislead and confuse the public as to what was actually agreed upon and accepted by the Security Council on 20 July 2015. The JPCOA is not the whole of the "Iran Deal" accepted by the United Nations Security Council.

Although Annex A: JCPOA of Resolution 2231 contains the majority of the provisions regarding the Security Council's Procurement Working Group mandate to expedite transfers to Iran of nuclear weapons related inventories; the remainder of Resolution 2231 also contains many important provisions concerning transfers of conventional weapons and ballistic missile weapons technologies – as well as further how-to details describing rules around the transfer of nuclear weapons capacity to the Ministers of the Government of Iran.

At the point of the writing in _A United Nations Bedlam Menace_ at which the reader has reached _2nd Portion; Part A_ ; the reader is already familiar with the documentation that in the last months of the Obama regime, that administration had consented to at least two transfers of nuclear weapons specific packages to Iran, and probably two others. In total between November 2016 and June 2017 inclusive – nine Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated inventories listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a had been approved by the Security Council.

As Resolution 2231 is documented by its own text as providing for and promoting the proliferation of nuclear weapons capacity to a singular State; any charlatan claims by the Obama administration that declare that his "Iran Deal" does not explicitly provide for and facilitate the expediting of the proliferation of nuclear weapons capacity to the non-nuclear-weapon State of Iran; such claims made during his administration are proven counterfeit.

The website established by the Obama administration is of a piece with the ruse used to trick the Congress into believing that it had even seen the text of the resolution Security Council that had been accepted by the Security Council.

Obama's website is just another piece of that administration's pretense that its weapons concessions to Iran affirm the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme – just like the resolution claims it does in the eighth paragraph of the resolution. Nevertheless, the provisions of Resolution 2231 describe the process through which the Security Council, hence the United Nations will promote, and currently does promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons capacity to the non-nuclear-weapon State.

The 114th Congress never did publicly admit whether it had figured out that it had been duped by the Obama. Even the 115 U.S. Congress so far has kept still in its collective embarrassed silence – this issue evidently is something of a taboo that just isn't talked about in the polite company of the right people anymore.

The United States electorate in 2016, by an overwhelming greater than two thirds of the eligible voting population of the United States determined that it would not to support the attempt by the mainstream reactionary pro-nuclear weapons proliferation wing of the Democratic Party in its bid to retain control of the Executive Branch, the White House.

The mainstream, pro-nuclear weapons proliferation wing of the Democratic Party has left behind a legacy that others have to clean up – that being the ongoing mandate of the Security Council's Procurement Working Group to expedite Iranian nuclear weapons acquisitions in violation of international treaty.

The nuclear weapons related transfers to Iran, arranged for in the final months of the Obama presidency; and all of the others since as well as those pending – should be identified and openly, publicly confronted in Congress.

The Congress has this following Constitutional obligation:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article I - The Legislative Branch

*Section 8 - Powers of Congress

[Clause 10]

[Congress shall have Power...] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

The Obama administration pretended that it is the President who determines for the United States what contraband is or is not, and what Offenses against the Law of Nations are or are not.

In the Obama administration's decision to establish a system of U.N. promotion and assistance expediting the ongoing practice of transferring nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies and services to Iran in violation of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; the Obama administration determined that it had decided for the United States what Barack Obama considered to be acceptable contraband, and which Offenses against the Law of Nations, against peremptory norm of general international law, _His_ United States would condone – and he pretended that it is for a United States President to order, whenever he feels it expedient to do so, violation of fundamental international treaty in defiance of Article VI, 2nd clause of the United States Constitution which declares:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

[Clause 2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The 115th Congress, in its embarrassed silence on the matter of the inept handling of the review of Resolution 2231 conducted by the 114th Congress; the failure of 114th Congress to recognize timely that the 114th Congress had never even received or went looking for the actual Security Council resolution; that continuous and unabated embarrassed silence of the Congress on the issue is unconstructive, shaming and cowardly, and this writing submits that the Congress has abdicated its responsibilities in regards to its preservation of its Constitutional Power _to define...Offenses against the Law of Nations_ for the United States.

The 114th Congress, in its self-indulgent indolence and its torpor; had effectively by abdication, delegated to and permitted the Executive branch the un-commissioned authority to decide that regardless of treaty, the United States only considers the transfer of nuclear weapons capacity to any non-nuclear-weapon State to be a violation of the Law of Nations when or if a particular President says it is. The opinion of Congress is not called for, and it is not to be considered of interest.

Naturally however, the Congress has no Constitutional authority to delegate legislative power to the Executive Branch – a topic that is explained in Chapter I; 3rd Portion – _Justice Sutherland and the Chaco Region Conflict_. Barack Obama simply had no Constitutional authority whatsoever to embark on his adventure of furnishing Iran with the Lethal Weapon whatever the ghost of Obama's publicity machine or his desperate adherents would like us to believe.

Essentially that short Part A of the 2nd Portion of Chapter I consists of a documentation of the ruse of the Web-Site, and some other aspects of elements of deception used to mislead the public.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

*Chapter I - Notice

2nd Portion – Big Town, Best Dirty Politics

Part B – How Can People do Such Crazy Things?

In Chapter I; 2nd Portion; Part B we visit the floors of both Houses of the 114th Congress of the United States. We listen in on their intimate public discussions of 10 and 11 September 2015 as they debate Barack Obama's "Iran Deal;" we are presented with various speeches made by Congresspersons as these conversations are recorded in the Congressional Record of those days.

This Part B of the 2nd Portion – _How Can People do Such Crazy Things_ – notes the Senate filibuster conducted by the mainstream of the Democratic Party, the political party which is on record as having been overwhelmingly in favor of the transfers to Iran of fissile nuclear weapons capacity provided for in Annex A: JCPOA of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.

The filibuster in the Senate was intended to, and did prevent, a Senate vote to disapprove the Obama "Iran Deal;" specifically and only the JCPOA – as even at that late time, not one member of Congress had figured out that President Obama never had transmitted the entire Resolution 2231 to Congress as required by law.

In our visit through the pages of the Congressional Record, pages competing for glorious fame as they are inscribed in the annals of our times; we will look on with astonishment as the populations of both Houses of Congress reveal to us that not a single representative of that collective of illustrious personalities populating that community of achievement noticed that the Obama administration had not transmitted the text of the Security Council resolution accepted by the Security Council on 20 July 2015, as the Obama administration was required to do by U.S. statute – and not one of the enterprising and enthusiastic members of the 114th Congress showed enough capacity for imagination that might inspire the initiative to bother to simply download United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 from the United Nations Security Council website free of charge, in order to take the opportunity to have a look at what might be in there.

In our visit through the pages of the Congressional Record we will thrill at the gripping saga of a conflict between two powerful rival clans of the chest pounding primitives, the inmates confined to the 114th Congress ward as they attempt to upstage their antagonists with electrifying boasts about how each and every one of these battle hardened contestants has so carefully read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (that thing that the inmates have heard each other talking about), and how they all had understood it and had thought really hard about it.

We will marvel as the truth is exposed!!! Not one of these collective wonders of advanced human consciousness and literacy infesting the 114th Congress will utter any public outcry, or take any public notice of the function of the United Nations Procurement Working Group with its mandate and commitment to expedite ongoing transfer to Iran of the latest in nuclear weapons technologies, goods, and services that Iran might offer to pay for.

We will look on in sorrow and pity as these harried, perhaps attention starved waifs; seeming to have forgotten that the main concern in discussing the topic at hand, at the time, the Barack Obama "Iran Deal;" the main topic of concern was whether or not Obama's "Iran Deal" will prevent Iran from ever achieving nuclear weapons capacity.

It is indeed a sorrowful thing to witness; it almost reminds one of that scene in Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, - the scene when the soon to be reformed self-centered Ebenezer Scrooge suffers his private nocturnal interview with the Spirit of Christmas Present.

Actually, Ebenezer Scrooge suffers four tortured visits from the nether regions. These would start first with a visitation from his deceased business partner who initially warns him of what lies in wait. And then there are three spectral visits from three aspects of Christmas – the most terrible of these is the final; the ghastly vision of a Christmas Future which utters not a word in response to Ebenezer's questions – only points a skeletal finger indicating what Ebenezer, horrified, already knows.

Whether these manifestations actually arrive from the supernatural, or whether these arise from the consciousness of Ebenezer himself – Dickens is agnostic, he does not speculate. Charles Dickens only requests of the reader the temporary suspension of disbelief, and the acceptance of propelling oneself into the meaning of the analogy.

RETURNING TO the Spirit of Christmas Present, if memory serves, during the course of their private reflections – the reflections between Ebenezer and the Spirit, two young children scuttle out very quickly and suddenly from beneath the protective robes of the Incarnation of Christmas Current.

Ebenezer Scrooge recoils in terror at these unexpected monstrosities and cries out to the Spirit something to the effect of: "What are these two horrors?" "Take them away – please – banish them from our presence!!"

To which the Spirit of Christmas Present responds kindly, gently admonishing: "But do you not recognize them Ebenezer? These are your children. The little boy is Ignorance; the little girl is Want (neglect)."

* * * * *

Ignorance and neglect – Dickens was right, that is a terrifying night vision reflecting primordial fear; and we've got that in the Congress of the United States.

I ask the reader to forgive me as I will go on to stretch the analogy. The two children in the Dickens story are objects of pity; eliciting remorse and a sense of shame at having allowed oneself (our protagonist – Ebenezer) to have become so negligent and uncaring as to tolerate the passage of time without ever attempting to make a contribution that might easily have been made – and that might have made a difference. Dickens, in Ebenezer's night visions of the early pre-dawn hours of Christmas morning, does speak to feelings that do reside privately, deep within the human heart.

The Congress of the United States, in ignoring its responsibility to look carefully at the Obama "Iran Deal" is not, however, an object of pity; it is something more resembling a menace, a manifestation of the spirit of social malfeasance associated with willful ignorance and indolence; a malfeasance which wields the potential destructive power resulting from a political culture which makes a practice of accepting and respecting as a norm, that the weight of political office and influence should be guided by lethargy, avoidance, and inattention.

Let's look at what we've got in this 114th Congress:

114th Congress Congresspersons had their access to the "Iran Deal" material. Even with the obstructionist Barack Obama refusing to cooperate and transmit Resolution 2231 to Congress, any one of those politicians infesting either House of the Congress could have gone up the United Nations Security Council website and downloaded a free copy of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 and had a look at it.

Not one of them did. Instead, the boy and girl inmates of the 114th Congress took it upon themselves to narrow down their homework assignment to a restrictive look at only the JCPOA. And what did the inattentive clowns discover in there? – Absolutely nothing.

Not one of the inmates of the 114th Paleolithic Congress would even notice, with the JCPOA sitting right there on the table staring them in the face, the substantial and detailed procedures mandated to the Security Council's newly established bureaucracy, the Procurement Working Group; directing and organizing the Procurement Working Group in the carrying out of its activities in regards to expediting on an ongoing basis, Iranian procurement of nuclear weapons associated goods, technologies and services.

When these Congresspersons presented themselves on the floors of both Houses of Congress on the 10th and 11th of September 2015; they all made the boastful speeches – we read some of those in the text of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ 2nd Portion, Part B. The politicians undertook to brag to each other about how each one of them would claim words to the effect they had read the JCPOA, that they understood it;

They all would claim for themselves a kind of deep and thorough literacy and interest in the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation.

Not one of the posturing politicians mentioned anything about the intention of the Security Council to egregiously violate the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) by establishing in the Procurement Working Group with its stipulated mandate to assist and expedite Iranian procurement of nuclear weapons associated technologies, goods and services detailed in that JCPOA that they had all boasted about having read oh-so-very-carefully.

Not one of those deep-thinking super-patriot politicians would point out that the 114th Congress couldn't be caught out voting for promoting the distribution of nuclear weapons associated materials to a non-nuclear-weapon State as this would be in violation of the NPT, and therefore also in violation of the United States Constitution:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

[Clause 2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Not one of those deeply caring Congressional humanists, those promoting themselves as "progressive" Congresspersons stridently advocating for the unread and unappreciated Barack Obama instigated "Iran Deal;" not one of them once uttered a whisper in public about the nuclear weapons proliferation program stipulated in the JCPOA itself – the deal that the messianic Barack Obama in large part claimed to have authored.

The electorate could almost start to get suspicious that these vaunted congressional debates carried out in early September 2015 were not really about any concern over the proliferation of nuclear weapons at all – rather, these were carried out for the sake of political grandstanding at the behest of the partisan interests of the Republican and Democratic Party political party machines' money making operations dedicated to generating funds for re-election campaigns.

Some might think it a shame if the electorate were to be moved to such a misguided and skeptical view of the illustrious, pure-of-heart Congresspersons staffing their positions in the legislature as mentioned above.

However, it's almost as if one couldn't assign blame if such a widespread viewpoint were to overtake the electorate; after all, not one member of Congress would even bring up the mandate bestowed upon the Procurement Working Group by the United Nations Security Council; that mandate to expedite nuclear weapons capacity to Iran.

Even after the United Nations Security Council announced approval of the first of two nuclear weapons related Iranian procurement packages on 17 November 2016, during Barack Obama's term office, the Congress of the United States, populated by the most caring anti-nuclear-weapons-proliferation progressive highly evolved advanced superior humanists that have ever been witnessed on the planet; the Congress, as far as this writing has been able to ascertain, had not and has not made the slightest attempt to discuss this dead issue of ongoing U.N. sponsored Iranian procurement of nuclear weapons associated technologies, goods and services.

By mid-summer 2017, almost two years after the fatuous votes of 10 and 11 September 2015, the 115th Congress maintains the tradition of Congressional deafening silence on the issue of United States involvement in, participation in, and responsibility for the Security Council's self-appointed mandate to violate the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on an ongoing basis – and the 115th maintains its silence in the face of, now nine – yes, nine United Nations Security Council approved Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated inventories of technologies, goods and services listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; all approved under the auspices of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed 14 July 2015 in Vienna.

That's Correct! This is indeed the same E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement that Barack Obama promised, and his reactionary acolytes might still be promising, would permanently prevent Iran from acquiring or developing a nuclear weapon.

Congressional non-response to the program enabling the proliferation of nuclear weapons is presented in _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ as background to the body of the explanation offered as to why people do such crazy things.

The "crazy things" referred to are the bizarre, seemingly completely inexplicable concessions made to the Ministers of the government of Iran by Barack Obama. What will follow at this point in the writing of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ is a discussion of the simple motivation for these perverse, misanthropic weapons concessions.

* * * * *

In reading through the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 weapons concessions made to Iran; both conventional, ballistic, and nuclear; these concessions made in support of a program vaunted as promoting the exclusively peaceful development of nuclear energy in Iran; these weapons concession may appear on the face of them as bizarre, completely irrational, and entirely inexplicable.

Actually, these concessions, made by Barack Obama, can only most reasonably thought of as bizarre, destructive, and completely irrational. However, as far as an explanation of the source of them (not a justification); this is easily explained given what is revealed to us in the text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.

The text of Resolution 2231 informs us of the many violations of treaty and rule of law intended and promoted by the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement renamed United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015).

These provisions of the resolution – often in such consistent violation of international treaty – bear testimony to the irrefutable parameters of the negotiation.

The negotiation was carried out, by best evidence, under the premise that neither peremptory norm of general international law, the restraints imposed by treaty or the restraints imposed by the Charter of the United Nations; these would not be allowed to inhibit the enactment of the provisions contemplated in Resolution 2231.

The very provisions of the resolution resulting from the negotiation bear irrefutable testimony to that. This is testimony that must be borne in mind when examining the negotiation of the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement turned Resolution 2231.

Let's look at it this way: there is this guy, this President of the United States along with his negotiating team. He walks into the austere private chamber of international negotiation;

This guy, this Barack Obama character, in his handling of the negotiation, didn't make a commitment that any negotiation conducted between the Ministers of the Government of Iran and the Office of the President of the United States must conform to international treaty. If Obama had made such a commitment – the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement would have reflected that – as opposed to the opposite; what the text of Resolution 2231 does in fact does contemplate and testify to.

The text of the result of the negotiation testifies that Obama had abandoned rule of law in order to come the terms he did. The examination here is that once Obama had abandoned rule of law, Obama had no guidelines to go by. The negotiation was conducted in the worst possible manner from the point of view of the United States. Obama would have no rule of law do draw on in support of any position he came up with.

That same issue wouldn't bother the Iranians during the negotiations – because, whether you agree with those rules and objectives or not, the Ministers of the Government of Iran have their own rules and their objectives which they do adhere to. It was Obama that went in to negotiation without any principles to fall back on. Without the support of rule of law, the negotiation would be an elusive back and forth discussion and with no restraints; a conversation that could go on forever because, without rule of law, Obama didn't have any nails to nail anything down with.

At a certain point Obama's only options were either to walk away and figure out his error – which would involve a capacity the man doesn't seem to publicly show he possesses; or, he could give in to making the most bizarre concessions simply just to get the business over with and go home and collect his recognition and his prizes.

President Barack Obama put himself on historical display as having negotiated a volatile, very dangerous agreement which guaranteed that the United Nations would be used as a staging area to expedite Iranian procurement efforts directed at acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.

The result of the negotiation documents that the Ministers of the Government of Iran got what they presumably wanted in the first place – U.S. and U.N. concessions on Iranian development of nuclear weapons capacity in violation of treaty.

The result of the negotiation, and the speeches made by Obama and his administration in his pursuance of the public promotion of the "Iran Deal," was Resolution 2231 as accepted by the United Nations Security Council; a document which Obama and his collective administration would never volunteer to provide, and never did transmit to the Congress of the United States as required by law;

The result of the negotiation suggests that Barack Obama got what he wanted out of the negotiation – something that might be publicly proclaimed, at least for a time, as an historic, monumental achievement in the annals of diplomatic of negotiation.

* * * * *

In more detail and nuance than in the above, Part B of the 2nd Portion of Chapter I, seeks to explain and examine how a departure from rule of law can, as it has been in the case of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, produce some of the most bizarre and the most undesirable results.

After study of Mr. Obama's documented abandoning of any loyalty to rule of law and international treaty – and hence his abandonment of Article VI of the United States Constitution, and hence his abandonment of any loyalty to the Constitution, and hence his effective abdication of his Oath of Office to Defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic – including himself;

After discussion of the fevered commotion of the results of the negotiation – the writing in Part B returns to the Congress of the United States observing that perhaps the moral and intellectual cowardice displayed by Barack Obama in the text of his Resolution 2231 E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement; perhaps that cowardice is not unique to that singular individual, but is shared in equal measure by Barack Obama's colleagues in the 114th and 115th Congress.

By "colleagues" this writing is not referring only to the Democratic Party politicians inhabiting the 115th Congress – this writing wonders about all of Barack Obama's colleagues; this writing wonders about all of those politicians of both political parties now infesting the 115th Congress...all silent concerning the ongoing sets of acquisitions for which they, through their own combined negligence, disinterest and neglect, have played a distinct default role in supporting.

Had anyone in either House in either political party publicly brought up the issue of the explicit transfers of nuclear weapons technologies, goods and services stipulated in the JCPOA and in other parts of Resolution 2231; then the answer would have been obvious, as follows:

Barack Obama had placed even his allies in Congress in an impossible position; no one could publicly justifiably supporting his "Iran Deal" as provisions in the JCPOA and the remainder of Resolution 2231 violate Treaty made under the Authority of the United States Constitution; and Obama, in his inept insolence, picked a hell of treaty violate.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is understood by many to be the foundational basis of control on the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

If the electorate in general had known about the Security Council approvals of Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated inventories to be carried out under the JCPOA – and that these approvals are essential to the JCPOA, then nobody in Congress could possibly have publicly supported it.

It was the job of the 114th Congress to read the JCPOA and discuss its substance. Every person in Congress was responsible for the material, and all who spoke proclaimed on some level that they had read it and seriously considered it. Therefore the Congress did know, or should have known about the provisions for United Nations Security Council promotion of and direct active support expediting Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons associated inventories, as decreed by the provisions of the JCPOA.

When Barack Obama threw his JCPOA, with its egregious violations of the NPT, down in front of Congress – he might as well have thrown the NPT down in front of the faces of the collective Congress and demanded: VIOLATE THIS!! But nobody could publicly support the JCPOA it the United Nations Security Council approval of Iranian acquisitions had it been generally understood by the electorate that the JCPOA had set up a system of approval for the provisioning of Iran with nuclear weapons associated inventories listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a.

And although it's true that some of the of the INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a inventories could be intended for purposes other than nuclear weapons manufacture; the IAEA and almost everyone else, including the U.S. Congress, is kept from any knowledge of the actual contents of the packages and end-use locations, and end-use applications of these acquired inventories.

This set-up has such a familiar ring to it – it's almost like something the Obama administration would have thought to propose. Oh Wait! As it turns out, Barack Obama did have a hand in authoring this! That sort of thing that kind of makes one wonder about coincidences sometimes.

Not even Obama's supporters could probably get away with publicly going against the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – so what happens? Everyone in Congress kept quiet and still keeps quiet, two year after the inception of the JCPOA, about the ongoing Security Council practice of approving Iranian acquisitions of the Lethal Weapon, and the discretion to commit mass murder at chosen opportunity or chance inclination.

The membership of both house of Congress had the JCPOA sitting on the table in front of them in good time (not the entire Resolution 2231, of course, the Congress never got that);

Congresspersons got up on their high-horses in front the U.S. electorate and boasted about how they had all read the JCPOA – in lieu of speaking to the substance of it, and without mentioning anything about the intended Security Council ongoing approval of Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated technologies, goods, and services that is actually writing in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action they had all so carefully read.

Whether these Congresspersons had read it or not, they are all responsible for the material – and since so many of them have asserted that really understand the document, and have and have really thought hard about it etc. – then why didn't any of them bring up the mandate of the Procurement Working Group?

Democratic Party supporters of President Obama certainly wouldn't want to do that; it might upset the Democratic Party Machine fundraising effort in the 2016 national election. And dissident Democratic Party Congresspersons opposed to the "Iran Deal" didn't talk about that either – possibly because interest in fundraising is, after all, a paramount issue of both the main U.S. political party machines.

Interestingly, the Republicans, all opposed to the deal, could have sunk the thing there and then had they mentioned the stipulated intent of the Security Council to aid and assist Iran in procurement of nuclear weapons capacity. It is almost as if – despite the virtue that all of these illustrious men and women of Congress would assign to themselves; despite the virtue that all of these illustrious men and women of Congress might assert to the public should be associated with their every virtuous thought, decision and action – in actual practice, none of them could be bothered to take any interest or notice anything at all about the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation staring them directly in the face.

* * * * *

For a brief, shimmering moment taking place over a few days in September of 2015, all of the denizens of the 114th Congress espoused such high-minded concern over possible proliferation of nuclear weapons to a non-nuclear-weapon State. It's true that no one brought up the documented mandate of the Procurement Working Group to expedite Iranian procurement of nuclear weapons capacity.

It's also true that no one spoke up about the United Nations Security Council resolution that had somehow gone missing.

But for a brief moment – in the blink of an eye – members of Congress had suddenly become concerned about an issue that might eventually affect the general welfare of populations of the United States and the World – that being United States on-going support assisting and expediting Iranian control of nuclear weapons capacity.

Every time one of the Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated inventories listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a, is approved by the Security Council's Procurement Working Group, the vote for approval includes a vote in consensus given by an United States Government Executive Branch that is exceeding its authority, working to violate treaty without any Constitutional authority to do so – without any Constitutional authority to submit that vote consenting to the violation of treaty.

This egregious and unconstitutional expansion of the Executive power – this power appropriated by the Executive Branch under the leadership of former President Barack Obama; the power to violate international treaty at will and on an on-going basis; this doctrine of the misuse of the Executive Office, was initiated by the Obama regime and continues to this day unabated and evidently unnoticed by either the Administration succeeding the Obama administration – or the 115th Congress.

That brief, September 2015 moment of enthusiasm, interest in, and high-minded concern over the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation to Iran was sustained for a few days in the lifetime of the 114th Congress; but it would soon dwindle away, wink out and vanish. The disguise had apparently been too difficult; too much trouble for the primitive inmates of the 114th Congress to sustain.

Interest in the issue has not yet, even in mid-2017, been deserving of any mention in the 115th Congress.

Where is that concern of Congress now? Now that Resolution 2231 provided for actions in support of the proliferation of nuclear weapons have already been and continue to be undertaken by the United Nation Security Council – as is documented in the text of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ ;

Why won't the Republican Party dominated 115th Congress speak to the fact that these ongoing approvals to violate international treaty are being carried out under a Republican administration in the White House? Forget that! – Why are these continued violations of international treaty and the United States Constitution being allowed to continue without comment or protest by any representative in either party of either House of Congress?

Certainly the reactionary mainstream of the current predominantly regressive Democratic Party who might continue to support the pro-nuclear weapons policy of the JCPOA doctrine that former President Obama had instigated; nobody in that camp might dare express the heresy that their principle darling messianic figurehead of modern times might not be all that the Democratic Party had publicly vaunted him as.

Certainly, and perhaps in part as a consequence of the fear of expressing an heretical view, the pro-nuclear reactionary mainstream of the current Democratic Party goes along with this new, insidious and unconstitutional expansion of grasping Executive power, an expansion which allows the Executive to violate international treaty at will and on an ongoing basis in order to appease Obama's "Iran Deal" arrangement and to ensure that those nuclear weapons associated concessions promised Iran are carried out.

It is irrefutable, going through the speeches of members of the 114th Congress; of the House of Representatives, and the Senate, of either party on either side of the question; it is irrefutable that not one of the Representatives of the People would mention the U.N. promised approvals of Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons – even though all who spoke in Congress on the 10th and 11th of September 2015 claimed that they are deeply concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Politicians always promote themselves as being virtuous and deeply interested in the issues, and of course, better informed on these issues than normal, everyday folks like you and me.

It is part of the job of these professionals to pretend that they are a cut above the others in order to convince the constituencies that they are qualified to be the arbiters on any issue of serious national concern. Naturally then, all members of Congress who spoke up in the debates on Obama's "Iran Nuclear Deal" promoted themselves as being deeply informed and deeply concerned with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. What are they supposed to tell the electorate; that they feel too insulated from the issue for it to make any difference to them? That wouldn't do.

And there was there was not enough of an interest then in Congress to take note of the fact that the Obama administration hadn't even transmitted the authentic text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 to Congress as required by law; this when every member of the Congress had much of the summer to wonder about where that essential document had gone missing to.

The Iranian nuclear weapons associated acquisitions expedited by the Security Council Procurement Working Group, and approved, with on-going consent, by the United States Government – which uses the JCPOA to justify its position – these approvals are in violation of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ (NPT), a treaty ratified by, and therefore made under the Authority of the United States.

When a U.S. President carries out on-going violation of a multi-lateral international treaty made under the Authority of the United States, and a Congress supports that by saying nothing about it; then both entities can most reasonably be considered to be in violation of Article VI (clause 2) of the United States Constitution which declares that Treaties made under the Authority of the United States are supreme Laws of the Land.

The United States Constitution also declares in clause 10. Section 8, Article I:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article I - The Legislative Branch

*Section 8 - Powers of Congress

[Clause 10]

[Congress shall have Power...] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

It was a U.S. President who instigated these ongoing United States approvals of Iranian nuclear weapons technologies, goods and services. These inventories can only most reasonably be construed as contraband per the NPT. It was a U.S. President who decided that the United States now considers that these inventories are not contraband.

The President has no constitutional authority to decide that – besides which, an earlier Congress already has decided that these inventories are contraband in this case. The NPT is a supreme Law of the Land; control of these inventories, without competent supervision by the IAEA, is issued to a non-nuclear-weapon State in violation of the NPT. The Congress has refused to authorize this – but Obama went ahead with his project anyway, and the succeeding administration continues to carry out the travesty anyway, not taking notice and changing course; and not correcting the situation. So who cares? If the Congress doesn't show any interest, then it must not be important after all.

For a couple of days in September 2015 the 114th Congress took a passing interest in the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation. On those two mighty days those who spoke up made sure to really let the constituency know that these arbiters of the serious were deeply concerned and really cared about nuclear weapons proliferation and had read the JCPOA carefully and all the things that one expects Congresspersons to say;

Once everyone had made their point, the issue was forgotten as far as the Congress was concerned – no one has spoken of it since. As a result of Congressional disinterest and negligence, United States approval of Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated inventories – nine through the months of November 2016 and June 2017 – is ongoing.

Issues like documented United States on-going approvals of nuclear weapons associated sales to Iran; or the current U.S. Government's on-going commitment to violate the United States Constitution – those issues are evidently too abstract, too distant for the Congress to sustain an interest in; they don't grab enough attention and they're too difficult to talk about; it's important for people to stick to what they know.

What the Congress does know, and what the Congress does sustain an interest in Congress, is figuring out new ways to slop dirt on the other political party. That is a project the Congress is willing to spend substantial time and thought and energy on – and the constituency does know it.

When you have a burnt-out, cynical political culture such as is current in the United States on the national level; where issues of rule of law are somewhat distant and more or less irrelevant, and considered perhaps childish to waste time on – such a culture produces the results before us.

Best evidence of the result of the negotiation is obviously the text of Resolution 2231, which testifies that the negotiating authors couldn't care less about international law or treaty. Barack Obama is a man of his time and a product of the cynical political climate he rose from.

He would take the practical way out – as the evidence testifies, he was willing to bend or break rules to get that deal and those accolades and let someone else try and clean up the mess later. No one else cared about or noticed the rules, why should he? Obama went ahead and got his goodies while he had the opportunity;

At a certain point Obama's only options apparently were either to walk away and figure out his error – which would involve a capacity the man doesn't seem to publicly show he possesses; or, he could give in to making the most bizarre concessions simply just to get the business over with and go home and collect his prizes. Obama collected his prizes.

And Obama was very confident that when he didn't transmit Resolution 2231 to the Congress nobody would care – and as it would turn out, nobody would even notice. That was good, because now neither the President nor the 114th Congress would have to go to the trouble to talk about the weapons concessions made in the remainder of Resolution 2231; other concessions, more concessions than those made in Annex A: JCPOA.

Obama was very confident that the completely lethargic and disinterested 114th Congress would not do much more than to give the JCPOA a token glance at best; no one would say anything about the procedure for on-going Security Council approval of Iranian acquisitions nuclear weapons inventories which the United States would be a part of – and naturally, as a matter of course, the Congress did not utter a peep about that.

Indeed, after all the media attention went away, attention in Congress to the "Iran Deal" just as easily went away as well.

Perhaps one day, when they are all grown up, those Congresspersons might come to consider the issues that were once placed before them to ponder.

However, the world might have moved on from a naïve and hopeful sense that the 114th and 115th current Congress was or is capable of doing more than to spit, shriek, and ignore.

The issue may soon be out of the hands of Congress if it isn't already.

* * * * *

If he really does oppose the weapons proliferation outrages provided for in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231(2015); this new President succeeding Barack Obama might spend some time meeting discretely with select foreign leaders to put together a petition to the International Court of Justice to have the Security Council resolution confirmed as having been void from the beginning.

Arguments in favor of Resolution 2231 and its doctrine establishing a system for the proliferation of nuclear weapons; are, the opinion of this writing, effectively arguments in favor of violation of treaty, the Charter of the United Nations and peremptory norm of general international law from which no derogation can made. Such arguments cannot be counted on to carry much weight before the Court.

Arguments against the validity of Resolution 2231 may very well be found as overwhelming.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

*Chapter I - Notice

3rd Portion – Justice Sutherland and the Chaco Region Conflict

This portion of Chapter I discusses the false premise that a United States President has some traditional right to negotiate just anything he wants in an international treaty, or international agreement of any kind.

If a president had that Constitutional Authority – which he does not – then he could legislate anything he wanted by virtue of a private agreement he had made with a foreign Prince or Potentate.

A president, sitting in comfortable private consultation with a foreign Prince, could lawfully discuss what that Prince feels the laws and the Constitution of the United States should really be. They could plan together how the United States Constitution shall ideally be modified, and what United States statue shall become – so that the president could return home and declare words to the effect of: this is what the Government of such and such a State and I have decided – and the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Citizen is subservient to combined, agreed upon whims of the President and the foreign potentate.

If a president could legislate, could dictate the laws of the United States by virtue of any private agreement he had made with a foreign government – then the notion of the sovereignty of the United States would, of course, be a complete sham; the guarantees of the Constitution would subject to any change at all times.

Nevertheless, that is the course decided upon; it is what President Obama attempted to do in his E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement – to alter statute and to violate both, international treaty made under the authority of the Constitution of the United States; and to violate the Constitution itself.

He set up a system dedicated to violating the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on an ongoing base – and so effectively declared something like that anything in the Constitution notwithstanding, a president is given Constitutional Authority, in the singular are of international negotiation, to violate the supreme Law of the Land.

As has been previously noted –Article VI, 2nd clause of The United States Constitution declares:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

[Clause 2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution further declares:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article I - The Legislative Branch

*Section 1 - The Legislature

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

A President has no enumerated power to legislate through negotiation; to use a negotiation as an excuse to violate treaty.

Nevertheless, the product of the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel negotiation demonstrates that Barack Obama was willing to assume such bogus authority.

Following is an example of a public statement made by Barack Obama that he had some mysterious and undefined power to negotiate as he pleased:

On April 17, 2015, in a Joint Press Conference between himself and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi conducted from the East Room of the White House; Barack Obama informed the Italian Prime Minister, and the U.S. and foreign press in attendance, of his (Obama's) own singular interpretation of The Constitution of the United States:

_"...The second concern_ [about a vote in the Congress with regards to Obama's "Iran Deal"] _I had was just an issue of presidential prerogatives.... This is not a formal treaty that is being envisioned. And the President of the United States, whether Democrat or Republican, traditionally has been able to enter into political agreements that are binding with other countries without congressional approval..."_

In the above, Barack Obama implies that he has some vague power to negotiate along "traditional" parameters; this suggesting that his power to negotiate is not restricted by the Constitution – but rather, it is unclearly described by subjective "traditional' interpretations of some sort or another.

The statement is so vague and exaggerated as to be silly and false on the face of it. However, what it seems to imply is that Obama wants people to believe that a president doesn't need Congressional approval for a negotiation if the negotiation is not over a formal treaty – there are mysterious subjective "traditional' interpretations of some sort or another that may control the parameters of an international negotiation; and these are beyond the reach of Congress to divine.

We already have a sense that Barack Obama's mysterious subjective "traditional' interpretations of the parameters of international negotiation effectively amounted to a kind of ad hoc, there's no law as a guidepost, rule of law is not to be an inhibiting factor in a negotiation between sophisticated, cosmopolitan adults; so panic-as-you-go-along style of negotiation as the method of choice chosen by default in the negotiation he and his henchmen carried out with the Ministers of the Government of Iran.

It would seem that the above interpretation of what Obama might have been trying to imply to Italian Prime Minister Renzi, to the domestic and international press held in rapt attendance at the joint press conference, and to the U.S. electorate;

It could seem that above interpretation of what must be Obama's perception of what he was trying to get across as a President's "traditional" role in negotiation. By conveying this notion of an undefined "traditional," hence fictional presidential prerogative; Obama seemed to justify support for by Obama's activities, to be published and broadcast a few months later through his this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Barack Obama, the guy who didn't transmit United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 to Congress could also be reasonably construed, among other things, as setting up a justification for excluding essential Congressional responsibility for review of an essential international agreement.

* * * * *

In the 3rd Portion of Chapter I – _Justice Sutherland and the Chaco Region Conflict_ , the writing of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ visits with United States Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland who thoroughly rebukes the fuzzy premise presented by President Obama.

Supreme Court Justice Sutherland takes the reader through the case of UNITED STATES v. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORPORATION, (1936).

In reviewing this case, the reader is introduced to a United States very different from the one we know today.

In this case we learn of a United States President – Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt – who, early in his presidency, refused to allow U.S. based arms exporters into the region of the Gran Chaco in South America – a region shared between Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay.

A hot border war dispute had broken out in the region; the belligerents being Bolivia and Paraguay – and some U.S. arms dealers were spoiling to make easy sport and gun-running profit off of selling arms to the belligerents and thereby assisting in escalating a conflict promising to develop into a brush war that would engulf defenseless rural peoples eking out a living in the countryside.

That President, that Mr. Franklin Roosevelt, had no intention of allowing the United States to be a staging ground area for transmission of arms into a region engulfed and mired in the hurtful ambitions and actions of belligerent Parties.

Then President Roosevelt consulted with ambassadors of other South American Nations not participating in belligerent action (primarily Brazil and Argentina); and he consulted with both Houses of Congress – all with the objective of deciding the most constructive and helpful course that might be undertaken by the United States.

It was decided through consultation with the South American leaderships and the Congress that the preferred course of action would be to embargo the situation and allow it to burn itself out.

Congress passed a Joint Resolution establishing an arms embargo against Bolivia and Paraguay and almost immediately a gun-running operation, Curtiss-Wright Export, along with its transportation affiliate, Barr Shipping, got caught attempting to run the blockade.

The convicted gun-smuggling operators sued the government roughly on the basis that the Joint Resolution was unconstitutional and that, in any event, the President had changed the law, and by this allegedly unconstitutional action the smugglers had unjustly been entrapped.

* * * * *

Actually, the smuggler's petition wasn't frivolous – there was enough convincing substance there to warrant further examination into the merit of the complaint. The Supreme Court clearly found this to be so.

In taking the reader through the case – Justice Sutherland explains the role of both the Congress and the President in international negotiation. It is explained that although a president is given a great deal of discretion and privacy in international negotiation – the parameters of the negotiation are limited; in that the outcome of the negotiation must adhere to U.S. statute and the United States Constitution.

The idea that a later U.S. President, such as Barack Obama, could (and did) negotiate ongoing violation of treaty in order to effectively give a belligerent State the discretion to threaten or commit mass murder at choice of expedient moment, or chance inclination; that approach is not recognized by the United States Constitution as legitimate.

AS A FURTHER POINT – the opinion of the Court, written by Justice Sutherland in the case of UNITED STATES v. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORPORATION, (1936) – was that President Franklin Roosevelt did not alter the law, as it may have honestly appeared to the appellees that he had done so. The Court was under an obligation to investigate whether or not President Roosevelt had altered or violated the law in pursuance of his own Executive objective of preventing the gun-runners from going up to the Chaco to engage in the sport of further inflaming conflict through arms smuggling with a view to eliciting possible substantial profit in exploiting the situation. The opinion of Court explains that Roosevelt did not violate or change any law. Mr. Roosevelt's actions and decisions conformed to the law as it had been written.

In the course of the discussion of this aspect of the petition, the Court thoroughly rebukes any notion that a president may use international negotiation to in any way excuse transgression against the Constitution of the United States – Supreme Court Justice Sutherland admonishes:

"...the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations...of course, **like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution**."

Barack Obama's vague assertion to Prime Minister Renzi and to the international press about "traditional" "presidential prerogative:"

_"...The second concern_ [about a vote in the Congress with regards to Obama's "Iran Deal"] _I had was just an issue of presidential prerogatives.... This is not a formal treaty that is being envisioned. And the President of the United States, whether Democrat or Republican, traditionally has been able to enter into political agreements that are binding with other countries without congressional approval..."_

The suggestion made by that statement that the results of a President's negotiation are unimpeachable, perhaps on account of subjective "traditional" presidential "prerogative" is an absurdity that could be taken as a wrong-headed misinterpretation of the obligations of a president.

However, given that speech in relation to the substance of what was negotiated; and that Barack Obama refused to transmit the results of the negotiation to the Congress; and that Obama claimed that he had the authority to formulate "... _political agreements that are binding with other countries without congressional approval_ ;" and repeating once again that Barack Obama refused to transmit the results of the negotiation to the Congress – perhaps because he had unilaterally decided that he could do without congressional approval;

And given Obama's lame excuse that he would not call whatever it was he had negotiated an international treaty and therefore apparently didn't need congressional approval: " _This is not a formal treaty that is being envisioned_ ;"

Given that Barack Obama effectively publicly declared that he didn't need Congressional approval to commit the United States to support a policy of furnishing the lethal weapon to Iran; a policy to provide ongoing support enabling Iran with nuclear weapons capacity and hence the discretion to threaten or to commit mass murder at choice of expedient opportunity, or chance inclination;

Given the overall absurdity and villainy of a self-seeking politician too weak to adhere to rule of law in negotiation, yet brazen enough to suggest that he can use his negotiation to violate the United States Constitution (as the text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 proves is the case);

Given those factors, the quote can be most reasonably understood as representing an intention to deceive the electorate as to how far a president's authority goes.

* * * * *

As to the resolution of the Supreme Court case itself:

The Court ruled against the appellees, the convicted who had brought the case before the Court. The reprobates were forced to pay their debt to Society – that agreed upon come-uppance posted as deterrence; that awful double edged sword held high by the lady – the villaines presumed to challenge it; and for the sake of gun-running of all things (pirates);

That sword was leveled and unleashed upon the syndicate; it did not meander; it scored decisively upon its objective, those of the grasping unruly who would commit themselves to such misbegotten, unctuous action – now they would have plenty of time to consider and reflect upon their ill conceived plans and inequities; as they had justly recommended themselves to the retribution that awaited them.

The case is now a largely forgotten experience; nevertheless, the stance that man in Office – our Man in Office, President Roosevelt – took against the hateful blood-sport of gun-running; in part shows an aspect of the speedy foresight, innate decency, unembarrassed concern, responsible timely courage in thought and integrity of character exhibited by one of the most remarkable Presidents of the United States – a President who is by no means forgotten to history.

* * * * *

The conclusion of this 3rd Portion of Chapter I presents the reader with an extended excerpt from the second of Alexander Hamilton's Phocian Letters wherein Hamilton contemplates the values of the United States constitution and the moral and practical hazards of disregarding the good sense of it at frivolous expedient prospect.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

Security Council Permit to Bedlam

*Chapter II - [Denying the IAEA Access to Iranian Mining and Milling  
Sites and Operations](tmp_af910092633df64ff6d6057981ccde12_IOsHQf.ch.fixed.fc.tidied.stylehacked.xfixed_split_001.html#ref_C02_)

The Resolution 2231 procedure to prevent as much as possible International Atomic Energy Agency on-site inspections of Iranian mining and milling sites has been discussed previously in Chapter I, First Portion, Part B – _A Quick Primer on IAEA Inspections of Iranian Mining and Milling Facilities_.

Chapter II examines possible essential motivation activating obstruction of International Atomic Energy Agency inspection of these operations.

* * * * *

Before getting into that discussion Chapter II offers a brief and very basic overview of the nuclear fuel cycle, as the reader who might be unfamiliar with the topic should have a preliminary sense of what is being discussed.

The writing then proceeds to document the various allowances granted Iran in stockpiling quantities of enriched, unenriched, and depleted Uranium Hexafluoride – and to what degree these varieties are exempt from safeguards monitoring.

This brief Chapter remarks upon the, in some respects porous nature of Resolution 2231 established practices of accounting for the real amounts of unenriched Uranium Hexafluoride in Iran at a given moment; and suggests the ease in which even a seemingly small amount of Uranium Hexafluoride falling into the hands of urban terrorist proxies – Freedom Fighters as they are called in some quarters – even a small account could enhance the power of a cheap, home-made non-fissile nuclear explosive device. This chapter only touches on that; the following Chapter III goes into more detail in this area.

* * * * *

Chapter II finishes with a brief discussion of the paucity of IAEA funding in Iran, and explains that this lack of funding further complicates the difficulty of the International Atomic Energy Agency fulfilling its responsibilities regarding the Iranian nuclear project.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

Security Council Permit to Bedlam

*Chapter III - [Civilian Urban Zone, and Military Battlefield Deployment of  
Non-Fissile Nuclear Weaponry](tmp_af910092633df64ff6d6057981ccde12_IOsHQf.ch.fixed.fc.tidied.stylehacked.xfixed_split_001.html#ref_C03_)

1st Portion – The Urban Terrorist's Nuclear Option

This First Portion of Chapter III goes into further detail on the porous nature of, the inadequate IAEA accounting for extant quantities of Uranium Hexafluoride in Iran at any given time. Such lax approach does not consider the danger.

This portion discusses use of Uranium Hexafluoride in an easily constructed, home made non-fissile bomb easily ignited by perpetrators out range – it discusses such a device in the context of its ignition in any populated environment.

It discusses the health effects of chemical and radiological exposure to UF6, and to some extent its capacities to enhance the violence and power of a home made explosive radiological dispersion device – commonly known as a "dirty-bomb.

A relatively cheaply available source of UF6 funneled into the hands of urban terrorist proxies, or "Freedom Fighters," if you would have it – this would not be a desirable thing to have. The issue of the poor IAEA accounting for real amounts of uranium hexafluoride in Iran therefore should be of greater interest than currently attends the concern.

However, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 can't be changed without Iranian consent – therefore the matter remains ongoing and unaddressed so long as Resolution 2231 is free to roam the corridors of the United Nations.

This issue discusses some of the societal consequences of explosions of such non-fissile nuclear explosive devices, and to an extent, the difficulty in keeping the agent UF6 from easily being smuggled into vulnerable areas once it has left the containment zone (theoretically Iran).
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

*Chapter III - Civilian Urban Zone, and Military Battlefield Deployment of  
Non-Fissile Nuclear Weaponry

2nd Portion – Year 15

This Portion discusses battlefield uses and deployment of non-fissile nuclear weapons – munitions and armor.

It brings up once again the aspect of the forming and casting uranium metal, this time in the context of battlefield deployment of non-fissile nuclear weapons.

It is unclear, at this point, what the status of such weaponry is under international treaty – but if Iran should decide to divert some of its material UF6 resource for use in production such advanced weaponry, it is probably free to do so.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

*Chapter III - Civilian Urban Zone, and Military Battlefield Deployment of  
Non-Fissile Nuclear Weaponry

3rd Portion – Easily Subverted International Atomic Energy Agency

Deciphering an IAEA Cry for Help!

This Portion addresses another dilemma faced by the international community – another aspect of obstruction of International Atomic Energy Agency efforts to fulfill its responsibilities under the NPT and the Statute of the IAEA.

THERE WOULD NOT BE ANYTHING NECESSARILY wrong that the entire E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel membership should also be on the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

As it stands currently – Iran is not on the Board of Governors, but the rest of the membership of the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel is: the U.S., U.K. Russia, Germany, France and China.

There shouldn't be anything necessarily wrong with that – except that these powerful and influential nations all favor, and have put in motion, a project which egregiously violates the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in its active promotion of the transfer of nuclear weapons capacity to the non-nuclear-weapon State of Iran.

There appears to be a bit of a conflict of interest in play.

This Portion details further aspects of Security Council obstruction of IAEA responsibilities – and points out that just as Resolution 2231 disregards the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, it also ignores the _Statute of the IAEA_ , which admonishes the following:

STATUTE – of the IAEA

ARTICLE II Objectives

The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose...

There is no question that arming a non-nuclear-weapon State with the capacity to manufacture fissile nuclear weapons is to be construed as having a military purpose.

Resolution 2231; Annex A: JCPOA is explicit; the IAEA is to be kept out of any part of the Procurement Process having to do with acquisitions of inventories listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a.

By rights then, the IAEA possibly shouldn't even be working on this blatant military project.

The IAEA probably has no choice – the entire E3/EU+3 group: U.S., U.K. Russia, Germany, France and China with their combined influence, sit on the IAEA Board of Governors – these are the nations exerting what could be construed as the strongest support for Resolution 2231.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

Security Council Permit to Bedlam

*Chapter IV - A Universal Bill of Attainder, as Well as Other Offenses

In this Chapter we examine another of the reasons why the Congress of the United States could never legally, successfully pass United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 into law.

Under Article 1 - The Legislative Branch; Section 9 - Limits on Congress; of The United States Constitution, it is forbidden to legislate a Bill of Attainder:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article I - The Legislative Branch

*Section 9 - Limits on Congress

[Clause 3]

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

The concept of the Bill of Attainder, so central to the logic of the Constitution in its approach to the rights of individuals or groups of individuals, seems rarely to be discussed or directly considered in this day and age.

Out of vogue and nearly forgotten, the concept might seem to some as foreign, or inexplicably unintelligible and archaic; which is why this writing seeks guidance from the those of distinguished learning, in this case United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren; so that concepts which seem at first obscure, upon examination are revealed as amazingly clear and elemental.

So far in the writing of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ we have visited with the experience, decisions and insights of United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803. We have visited with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the late 18th Century; also with United States Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland in 1936.

Even though he has not spoken to us directly in this writing, we are given to witness – through the eyes of the Supreme Court – the actions of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as he acted, as authorized by the Congress and in cooperation with other South American States, to prevent a hot belligerent conflict from escalating further; and we have received the instruction of Presiding Justice James Tenney Brand, circa 1949, as he considered " _The Justice Case_ " of the Nuernberg trials.

As mentioned, in this portion of the writing of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ we meet with United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1965, in the Supreme Court case of UNITED STATES V. BROWN (1965) – (No. 399) 381 U.S. 437.

In that case the Supreme Court found, and decided against the Government of the United States, that a Bill of Attainder had been passed by the Congress (some few years before 1965), and that, as such, the Bill had to be vacated (annulled) as unconstitutional.

Persons who had suffered from this bill of attainder had to be made whole for the wrong done them by the United States, and any actions carried out under the Bill were understood as wrongs carried out against the People of the United States of America.

In the opinion of the Court – Chief Justice Warren explains the history, and the significance of the Bill of Attainder, speaking to the harms arising from the Bill of Attainder and clarifying the reason for the prohibition in the Constitution against legislation of such.

Among other things, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren discusses the Bill of Attainder clause as a prohibition against any act of legislation that seeks to deny the rights of individuals or groups of individuals, or all individuals universally, of the protections guaranteed by the Constitution; to deny these without due process of law. Justice Warren observes:

"... The deprivation of any rights, civil or political, previously enjoyed, may be punishment, the circumstances attending and the causes of the deprivation determining this fact...."

The above brief mention of on aspect of the judicial application is an oversimplification of the concept. Chief Justice Warren also points out other aspects of the prohibition against legislating Bill of Attainder. Justice Warren explains that the prohibition was put in place to serve "... _as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply -- trial by legislature_ ;" Justice Warren explains how this works.

Chief Justice Warren's explanation is succinct as he feels it needs to be; and yet, in its brilliance, is extraordinarily lucid in explaining something that, as suggested, might seem at first obscure – but once revealed is so elemental that having been externalized and clarified, we suddenly are aware that we were perhaps considering it unconsciously, and somehow knew of this all along.

* * * * *

This Chapter discusses the relationship of these most serious commitments of the United States, which prohibit both; violation of treaty made under the Authority of The United States, and the prohibition against legislating a Bill of Attainder.

The Bill of Attainder clause is one of the elements providing for a blanket prohibition of stripping persons or groups or all individuals of their rights;

And then there is Article VI; clause 2 of the Constitution:

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

[Clause 2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

To violate treaty is not just to violate the trust invested in the United States, the international belief that the United States is a stable government that others can put confidence in, and invest in;

Violating a treaty such as the very fundamental Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons also means to strip the U.S. Citizen of the enjoyment of the protections confirmed by the treaty.

When that has been disowned by an administration that violates that treaty in favor of the designs its own expediency, or a quest for fleeting popularity; when the United States demonstrates to the world that it is nothing more than an unstable banana republic whose guarantees, to the international community, to uphold such fundamental treaties as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), can be tossed aside by any U.S. President that comes around with a whim; then that United States may as well be understood not simply as just an unstable banana republic; but a very menacing one armed with perhaps the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world – that is if it were generally concluded internationally that the Government of the United States was generally not to be considered as trustworthy.

Congress could never have legally approved Barack Obama's "Iran Deal" turned United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 – it would have been necessary to challenge it in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional violation of international treaty on a basic and egregious level; and as the legislature attempting to enact a universal Bill of Attainder against the United States electorate – a Bill of Attainder that would strip all citizens of the right to the enjoyment the protections of Treaty made under the Authority of the United States.

Noise over all of this might have turned out to be bad publicity for the proponents of nuclear weapons proliferation supporting the resolution and its Annex A: JCPOA. The Congress would have committed two wrongs – it would have endowed itself with a judicial authority to decide when a treaty is applicable and when it wasn't, and that therefore the Congress would take upon itself to determine that in the special case of the JCPOA – the JCPOA supersedes international treaty and peremptory norm of general international law because somehow, the Congress had decided that Iran really does need to develop the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons with the assistance of the Untied States, the five permanent members of the Security Council, and the United Nations in general – or to put it simply, Congress would have legislated violation of treaty, that would be one wrong.

As stated, but reiterating, the other obvious wrong, in enacting such legislation, is that the Congress would be stripping the United States Citizen of the enjoyment of the protections previously afforded by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) – that could be understood as a Bill of Attainder.

The Congress would also be stripping citizens of nations world-wide of their enjoyment of the protections afforded by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Fortunately the Congress didn't come close to disavowing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Instead it did something else of perhaps equal harm; it allowed Barack Obama to proceed on his unconstitutional course of approving Iranian nuclear weapons related acquisitions – an action which Barack Obama is not authorized by the Constitution to undertake.

The 114th Congress did not make the distinction between a legal "Executive Order," and an unconstitutional "Executive Order" – an "Executive Order" which violates the Constitution. The culture of the 114th Congress, as evidenced by its inaction on the issue, demonstrates that the 114th Congress recognized not the Separation of Powers as assigned and mandated by the Constitution; but instead pretended that a President's decisions supersede any restraints imposed upon the Executive by the Constitution.

The 115th Congress does the same – it honors presidential decisions as superseding any restraints imposed upon a U.S. President by the Constitution.

Since perhaps somewhere in late January 2017 through 27 June 2017, five more Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated inventories listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a have been approved by the U.N. Security Council – bringing the total up to nine thus far.

In order to receive this United Nations approval for each acquisition, a vote in consensus with the United States is required.

The approval given for this ongoing promotion of Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons related technologies fall right in the early tenure of the 115th Congress and the newly elected U.S. President succeeding Barack Obama.

It is all the more the shame that this new President allows this to go on when he has the authority to put a stop to it – this president has claimed that he is opposed to the JCPOA, and has been noted in the press as vowing to get rid of the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement.

We have been instructed by Presiding Justice James Tenney Brand, in the Nuernberg Courts evaluation of the evidence in the " _The Justice Case,_ " of the following

"...The person who persuades another to commit murder, the person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of its commission, and the person who pulls the trigger are all principals or accessories to the crime."

Given that perspective, why shouldn't this newly elected president stand up and say something like: "No, I will not be a Party to this, I will not allow that the United States any further to be party to the 'Furnishing of the Lethal Weapon'." What reasonable person could fault him for that? Why wouldn't he do such a thing? Would he be too proud to do this because an earlier President, President Franklin Roosevelt, had already done this in another time, another era, decades earlier?

The new President could begin negotiations with other U.N. Member States unhappy with the situation; States which would also standing in the Court on this issue as being Party to the NPT. A petition could be brought before the Court requesting the International Court of Justice to confirm that, because of its many provisions violating the NPT, the JCPOA was void upon its conclusion on 14 July 2014:

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

Concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969

*PART V. INVALIDITY, TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

*SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

_Article 53_. Treaties Conflicting With a  
Peremptory Norm of General International Law ("Jus Cogens")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

Petitioning the Court to help put a stop to this might be viewed by many as a more reasonable and agreeable course than allowing continuing further progress on these nuclear weapons related procurement activities.

* * * * *

These issues, and the effect of possible growing uncertainty and concern as to the stability of a United States unwilling to adhere to treaty and paralyzed by indecision on an international concern of such magnitude, are discussed in more detail in the text of Chapter IV of _A U.N Council's Bedlam Menace_.

At the end of the Chapter we visit with an extended excerpt from a famous and very eloquent speech given by former President Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower, wherein he expresses his concern over the growing political influence of armaments interests in the United States and warns the electorate that: "... _we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought_ ," of such arms-dealing interests.

The goodly concern and sound advice that President Eisenhower sought for us to have is worthy of study and reflection, especially in this particular period in history.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

Security Council Permit to Bedlam

*Chapter V - Petition and Remedy

Chapter V discusses some twenty-seven issues that may be, as a whole, brought before the International Court of Justice concerning United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 in its repugnancy to general peremptory norm of general international law from which no derogation is permitted; the Charter of the United Nations; and various international treaties, especially the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The fundamental problem is: the Security Council has set up its ongoing procedure to furnish a non-nuclear-weapon State with the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Unlike the spy movies of the past – where super-secret Agents, like James Bond 007, had to penetrate the hidden lairs of nefarious the international underground criminal organizations – this is the true story of possibly one of the most internationally entrenched groups, the United Nations, trying its hand at the sport of becoming what could be construed as the largest international criminal nuclear weapons arms distribution syndicate the world has ever witnessed;

What must be frustrating for politicians currently supporting all of this activity is that the U.N., and other Agencies, have made, and make, most of the information about its arms dealing adventure oh-so-easily and legitimately publicly available that United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 is almost impossible for our strident politicians to defend on any rational level; even the typical politician making a living off of being irrational and obstructionist should experience the "Devil's Own Day" trying to support the arms deals provided for in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 with any facts or "moral" arguments.

So let's not waste any time waiting for the main course, let's get right around to checking in on what is wrong in all of this; Chapter V goes into various provisions of the Security Council resolution in question which must be understood as intolerable on a multiplicity of levels.

* * * * *

After presenting a brief orientation session, among other things reiterating the definition of peremptory norm of general international law, Chapter V presents the issues. Many of these require only brief explanation to get a sense of them – a few are quite complex.

The issues are presented in three Sections:

*Section A – Violation of peremptory norm of general international law in regards to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons;

* Section B – Violation of peremptory norm of general international law in regards to the Charter of the United Nations; and

*Section C – Notes and Observations in Summary; which deals predominantly with the impossibility of separating out the provisions selectively deciding that such may stay, and such must be eliminated from United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231. This area of Chapter V explains that even when there are potentially beneficial provisions in the resolution – the document as it is must be taken as a whole, as the author's implicitly demanded, and as shall be made obviously clear. We proceed to Section A:

* * * * *

* **Section A** – _Violation of peremptory norm of general international law in regards to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ ; focuses on violations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – which, incidentally, are automatically violations of the Charter of the United Nations.

We are reminded throughout _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ that Articles I and II of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons prohibit that Parties to the Treaty will not in any way assist; nor will seek or accept assistance in acquiring or developing nuclear weapons capacity – and no party will give permission; nor will any Party seek permission to gain control over such weapons:

ARTICLE I

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty **undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control** over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and **not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons** or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

ARTICLE II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty **undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices** or **of control over such weapons** or explosive **devices directly, or indirectly** ; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and **not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture** of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 presents its objectives which must be most reasonably understood as being in complete opposition to those precepts – provisions of the resolution defy the treaty in a multiplicity of aspects. Bullet points 1 through 3, and 5 and 6 speak to various areas of this. The titles of each point should give the idea of the theme of each:

1. Assisting a non-nuclear-weapon State to develop nuclear weapons capacity in violation of Article I of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

2. Violation of Peremptory Norm of General International Law – Furnishing a Lethal Weapon Capable of Use in Committing Mass Murder of Populations.

3. Establishing procedures to induce a non-nuclear-weapon State to develop nuclear weapons capacity in violation of Articles I and II of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

5. Basic Violation – assisting a non-nuclear-weapon State to seek to acquire nuclear weapons systems

6. Basic Violation – granting control of the means to manufacture nuclear weapons to a non-nuclear-weapon State

Point 4 – _Declared Intention to deviate from established Peremptory Norms of General International Law_ – discusses how and where in the text of Resolution 2231 – the Security Council declares, both explicitly, and implicitly, that it may supersede treaty (hence the Charter of the United Nations as well as peremptory norm of general international law) as it chooses.

* * * * *

The first clause of Article III of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ declares the following:

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

ARTICLE III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency's safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices...

The International Atomic Energy Agency does have a mandate to prevent "... _diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices_." Nevertheless; as _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ documents throughout, The International Atomic Energy Agency is kept out of reviewing numerous areas of concern which may be related to nuclear weapons procurement and manufacture.

Most notably, the IAEA is excluded, by the provisions of Resolution 2231, from any precise knowledge of the exact content of the Iranian nuclear weapons associated acquisitions of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a listed inventories; jus as the Agency is kept away from any knowledge of end-location or end-use of such acquisitions. This is one of this aspects of devices found in Resolution 2231 which the Security Council might very well end up having to defend before the International Court of Justice.

Here are the titles of points 7 though 9, which should give the reader some sense of what is contained within those – each of which discusses various aspects of United Nations Security Council obstruction of the IAEA carrying out its responsibilities:

7. Basic Violation – United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 disregards the IAEA Safeguards Agreement with Iran

8. Intentionally designed obstruction of IAEA responsibilities and duties – in violation of Article III of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

9. Another Obstruction of the IAEA: Effectively precluding on-site inspections of mining and milling operations

* * * * *

THE TENTH POINT – _Violation of NPT Article VIII; Clauses 1 and 2_ – submits that in order to accept the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, a fundamental change to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons would have to be elected by the signatories to the Treaty.

The Treaty, as currently written, does not allow that the Security Council may decide when or when it doesn't apply. The Security Council makes that determination every time it approves one of those weapons acquisitions benefiting the non-nuclear-weapon State. This constitutes an approach that is most reasonably construed as in defiance of the treaty and an insult to all Parties to the Treaty (except those few Parties to the NPT who are also members of the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel group hoping to profit from the Security Council resolution).

Article VIII,, clauses 1 and 2 of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ does afford a mechanism for amending or altering the Treaty – a manner in which States Party to the Treaty might elect to alter the NPT so that it might serve as a tool for the Security Council to use or ignore at its own expeditious whim.

No such vote on amending the NPT was ever addressed or offered.

There is direct evidence of the E3/EU+3 Iran group's intent to suppress a competent vote on the resolution itself. There is no direct evidence of E3/EU+3 Iran group intent to suppress a competent vote on amending the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the manner which United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 demands.

A vote on amending the NPT was simply treated as a non-issue to be ignored by the Security Council.

That point might not sound very serious; but its true – the Security Council ignores the Charter of the United Nations on so many points; and also purposefully misstates the Charter. The Security Council ignores the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons whenever it feels the Treaty gets in its way. Therefore, why shouldn't the Security Council be held accountable on every point that it omits?

THE ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH points are as follows:

11. Some Possible Political Consequences for Granting Control, to a Non-nuclear-weapon State, over Materials and Components Necessary to the Manufacture of Nuclear Weapons

12. Brief Observations on and Corollary to bullet points 1 through 11; Violations of Peremptory Norms

These contain further observations on implications and international repercussions of permitting Iran nuclear weapons capacity.

* * * * *

* **SECTION B** – _Violation of peremptory norm of general international law in regards to the Charter of the United Nations_ ; focuses on Security Council violations of the Charter of the United Nations, the only commission from which the Council may derive or claim any authority whatsoever.

Points 13 and 14 reiterate that the vote to adopt the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel agreement was incompetent for two reasons – and that the vote was intended to be incompetent, as has already been shown in the text of Resolution 2231.

13. Illegitimate Vote of the Security Council

14. Illegitimate Vote of the Security Council – General Assembly

Resolution 2231 stipulates the conditions under which the vote was to be taken; and under that condition, and failing a meeting with the Military Staff Committee on the plans for establishing a system for the regulation of armaments; and failing to formulate and present that plan to the General Assembly – it must be most reasonably concluded that the vote did not fulfill the requirements of Article 26 of the Charter of the United Nations. Further, the text of the JCPOA itself explicitly ascertains that the vote was intended to take place in a manner that would exclude a meeting with the Military Staff Committee.

* * * * *

These next five points all discuss various aspects of the Charter of the United Nations that Resolution 2231 dramatically infringes upon. To understand these it is necessary to consider Article 24, clause 2 of the Charter of the United Nations:

The Charter of the United Nations;

*CHAPTER V: THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Functions and Powers

Article 24

2. In discharging these [the Security Council's] duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the

These following topics all concern themselves with Articles of the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, which Resolution 2231 tramples upon as it rushes on with its project to arm a uniquely favored non-nuclear-weapon State:

15. Dismissal of the obligation to uphold treaty

16. Dismissal of the obligation to maintain international peace and security

17. Dismissal of the obligation to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples

18. Rewarding Threats against territorial integrity, political independence of other nations

19. Universal Violation of Fundamental Freedoms of Electorates

Each point discusses how the Security Council has the responsibility to: **Uphold** treaty; **Maintain** international peace and security; **Develop friendly relations** among nations; **Assist in ensuring** that all Members refrain in their international relations from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other State; and the Security Council must not violate **Fundamental Freedoms of Electorates.**

AT THE VERY LEAST the Security Council must not **violate treaty** ; the Council has no business adopting a resolution that expedites the transfer of nuclear weapons associated technologies, goods and services to a favored non-nuclear-weapon State, or any State;

THE SECURITY COUNCIL MUST AVOID adopting resolutions that can only most reasonably be understood as inflammatory and most likely to result in escalation of tensions leading to hot conflict for which the Security Council would be responsible;

Instead, the Council must do everything in its power to attempt to develop friendly relations among nations; in part, exactly by not adopting resolutions which expedite the transfer of nuclear weapons associated technologies, goods and services to a uniquely favored non-nuclear-weapon State – thus fueling rivalry and fear amongst nations; along with a menacing, one-sided weapons escalation which could most reasonably be understood as provocative in a region already pressured by conflict.

The Security Council is required to be working to assist in peace efforts. It does not have the authority to collude with arms dealers to expedite, as it has in the last months of 2016 and the first half of 2017, the approval of nine or any number of nuclear weapons associated transactions – this activity on the part of the Security Council cannot be construed **maintaining international peace and security** ; and cannot be reasonably construed as **developing friendly relations among nations** ;

THE SECURITY COUNCIL MUST AT THE VERY LEAST REFRAIN from undertaking a course of action that assists any State in developing nuclear weapons capacity – such as the Council does to the benefit of its uniquely favored non-nuclear-weapon State, a State which is understood as regularly **threatening the territorial integrity, political independence of other nations** ;

BELIEVE IT NOT – AND IT IS POSSIBLE THAT, given some of the personalities of the leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council, those people might not even be aware of this;

The Security Council is at least responsible to not tamper with the voting rights of electorates – which they have arguably done in their construction of Resolution 2231, which is designed to mislead voters in any electorate;

**Points 18 and 19** require and receive the lengthiest explanations of the bunch.

18. Rewarding Threats against territorial integrity, political independence of other nations

POINT 18 seems most idealistic and abstract. The Charter of the United Nations declares repeatedly words to the effect of: " _All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state_...;" or " _In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources_...;" or, as declared in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons " _States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State_...;"

Many cynics might take these kind of pronouncements as simple romantic aspiration; quaint, unattainable, and having nothing to do with the expedient politics and policies that politicians often demand of themselves. Such quixotic, impractical stuff is easily dismissed by the worldly cynic trained to ignore useless fantasy.

Yet one might ask oneself which is more practical;

Is it more practical for cynical politicians to indulge the political conceit that a political party – such as the Democratic Party in the United States – can hide, for 15 years, the fact that the United States has been joining in consensus to vote, along with the other E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel member States, to approve of Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated technologies, goods and services in violation of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ , and on an on-going basis?

Isn't it more practical to step back for a moment and think about it; to take a little time and consider something like: I, Mr. or Ms. Leader-of-one-of-the five permanent Member States of the Security Council; I might be a hopeless romantic and a dreamer – but nevertheless, I have the Law on my side when I refuse to approve transfers of nuclear weapons related technologies, goods and services to any non-nuclear-weapon State, including a non-nuclear-weapon State which constantly threatens some of its neighbors with annihilation.

Is it rational then for me to join in with the rest of that herd of untested political cattle; to mindlessly stampede with the bulls racing for that high-voltage electric fence just ahead; should I rush forward and approve transfers of nuclear weapons related technologies goods and services to a non-nuclear-weapon State which also makes a habit of threatening its neighbors with extinction? Should I rush ahead and approve transfers of nuclear weapons related technologies goods and services to any non-nuclear-weapon State at all?

The judgment of the Nuernberg Court has already long since been handed down:

"...The person who persuades another to commit murder, the person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of its commission, and the person who pulls the trigger are all principals or accessories to the crime."

The current President of the United States could tell himself something like: Forget whether or not I was ever tried and convicted for distributing the Lethal Weapon – I would nevertheless be a criminal, certainly a moral criminal, were I to collude with the others and concede to hand over the Lethal Weapon thus leaving it to the discretion of the recipient State to commit, or threaten to commit, mass murder at choice opportunity or chance inclination. By conceding, I would be understood to be envious of the violent man; I would know in myself that I was so weak as to imitate him in his ways.

Why should anyone feel competitively pressured by, and envious of, the accolades an earlier U.S. President received once his "Iran Deal" was concluded; a president who entered into a negotiation without an approach, and who would prove himself to be too intellectually dishonest and too much of a moral coward to adhere to the only strength he had in negotiation – that strength being Rule of Law. Should I imitate _that guy's_ ways?

That President was of an earlier time, a time when the Legislative Branch, the Congress of the United States of America didn't think too much about the Constitution or the Law of the Land – and were willing to be swayed by whatever that previous President decided.

I have a chance to cause a sea-change in modern U.S. political thinking – I can say NO to this immoral, intolerable, and illegal policy of nuclear weapons proliferation currently mesmerizing the paralyzed Congress.

The constant egregious violations and infringements imposed by text of the provisions of the resolution that previous U.S. President negotiated prove that Expediency was the Rule throughout the negotiation; Rule of Law was an issue of, at best, secondary concern if even that – hence the multitude of infractions without apology which pockmark the resulting product.

Why should anyone in the electorate feel competitively pressured by the accolades given by the United States news media in general, comprised of a collection of news agencies themselves too dumbfounded and confused at the time to look at the weapons transactions contained in just Annex A; JCPOA of the resolution?

Take away the accolades and the general support of a "genius" news media; take away the ceremony and the cheers and approving foot stomping and what have you got? The most extensive scheme to violate the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons ever dreamt of yet; and the syndicate of choice backing and carrying out the scheme is the United Nations Security Council.

The Security Council doesn't do this in back alleys – it does it in full view. The Obama-era leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy seemed absolutely confident in their prowess at attracting a world of devoted blind followers to the cause of their adventure; the Council even invented a fairy-tale to go along with and support the notion of the Council's immunity and infallibility:

Underscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council's decisions,

The Obama-era Security Council is far more advanced than the infamous Super-Villains of the past, such as the nefarious Dr. Moriarty of the Sherlock Holmes stories; whose underground criminal empire stretched its unseen tentacles into every class of society, from the lowest to the highest, leeching whatever valuables the treacherous Dr. Moriarty could conspire to attach using the devices of his organized gang of goons and sophisticated experts.

The Security Council doesn't need to resort to the underworld methods of the insidious Dr. Moriarty – the Council simply does what it wants and tells the rest of the world to go to hell;

Thus explaining the need for an International Court of Justice – the last sure chance café able to put a stop to this ongoing arms deal before States neighboring and threatened by Iran start getting it into their heads that the United Nations is not only useless – it is indeed the direct source of the problem.

Part of the intent of point 18 is to explain the reasoning for the Charter of the United Nations' numerous prohibitions against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of other States.

19. Universal Violation of Fundamental Freedoms of Electorates

POINT 19: here the issue is fundamentally a simple one. _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ explains where in the Charter of the United Nations the United Nations is prohibited from tampering with the voting rights of the various electorates.

Then there is a discussion of how Resolution 2231 is designed to tamper with the vote, It is actually fundamentally a very simple device that's used – just keep the details of the transactions away from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the electorates. In other words, downplay the seriousness of the situation that the United Nations Security Council is responsible for creating.

Here's the scenario; in its eighth paragraph Resolution 2231 declares:

[The Security Council] "Affirming that full implementation of the JCPOA will contribute to building confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme,"

Resolution 2231 later sets forth its procedure arranging for Security Council approval of Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated technologies, goods and services.

One aspect of these approvals is that knowledge of the exact material contents of each of the approved packages must be kept out of reach of the IAEA and the general public. Only a handful of rare, select elite persons may know what mysteries lie within.

This is that version of international rule of law in the style of the current U.N. entrenched conformist bureaucrat: – you can violate international treaty and furnish the Lethal Weapon as much as you want and still be sure to get into heaven as long as you've got all of your paperwork filled out and up to date.

The intense secrecy surrounding the exact contents of the packages might be understandable if Resolution 2231 were merely a military project intending to violate prohibitions of international treaty against assisting a non-nuclear-weapon State acquiring nuclear weapons capacity – this sneakiness and secrecy might make sense to some.

But Resolution 2231 is declared and vaunted as an exclusively peaceful nuclear project which is intended to violate prohibitions of international treaty against assisting a non-nuclear-weapon State acquiring nuclear weapons capacity – this might make the secrecy surrounding all of this illegitimate activity a little harder to explain and justify.

The JCPOA, and the entire Resolution 2231, may very well be confirmed by the International Court of Justice as void upon conclusion; and also therefore void upon acceptance of the resolution itself by the Security Council.

If so, approval by the Security Council was immaterial before the bureaucrats even pulled out the rubber stamp and splattered that ink; and no secrecy around the contents of the packages approved and permitted by the Security Council is thereby justifiable on any level.

IF WE CONSIDER THE ACTIONS of one of the main authors of Resolution 2231 – Barack Obama, the guy who suppressed transmittal of Resolution 2231; the guy who pretended on his website that the JCPOA itself is the "Iran Deal;" the guy who made up all those tall tales, and had his minions go around town telling tales about how Barack Obama's showcase "Iran Deal" was going to prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon; the guy who permitted and oversaw, in the last few months of his Presidency, the U.N. consensus vote (which included Obama's necessary, and obliging vote) to approve at least two, and probably four Iranian procurement proposals for acquisition of nuclear weapons related technologies, goods and services listed on INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a;

When we consider who one of the main authors of Resolution 2231 was; the need for keeping the electorate in the dark becomes obvious.

Despite the documented effort to mislead the public, the Democratic Party could not capture even a third of the popular vote of the U.S. electorate in the 2016 national election. The largest electoral block in the total population of eligible U.S. voters stayed home in disgust – refusing to vote at all; others voted against the Democratic Party's chosen candidate.

It was the Democratic Party's election to lose – their candidate was Hillary Clinton, the wife of popular previous President Bill Clinton; and the Democratic Party was running against a dark-horse candidate who himself wasn't well-liked generally, and who the Democratic Party had made sure to brand as unstable, stupid, and all sorts of bad things.

The election should have been a Sunday's walk in the park for the Democratic Party – but the machine had completely lost credibility with the electorate on oh-so-many issues, not the least of which was Barack Obama's "Iran Deal."

The Democratic Party might not have understood how widespread the feeling against the proliferation of nuclear weapons is with the electorate. Although the Democratic Publicity machine had tried, they had not successfully deceived enough of the registered Democratic Party electorate that the "Iran Deal" was any good. The political Party elite simply miscalculated; the U.S. electorate, across the board – registered with either party, the vast majority of U.S. citizens consider nuclear weapons proliferation abhorrent; and that a United States political party would be responsible for instigating, promoting and supporting such a thing is considered by many to be an abomination. The Democratic Party political elite simply miscalculated; much of the U.S. electorate knows much more about nuclear weapons proliferation than the elite Democratic Party establishment can account for.

NEVERTHELESS, THE POINT HERE is that the Democratic Party tried to deceive, and tried to steal the election of 2016 on what were perceived by the electorate as false claims and promises in so many areas.

There was a political motivation behind the deceptions as well as the secrecy surrounding the exact mysterious contents of the Iranian acquisitions approved by the Security Council.

It's a cheap trick; lie by omission; keep things secret and the electorates won't have anything to vote against.

It's a cheap trick, an age-old political strategy – and it didn't work that time in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Despite the tawdry ruses, the United States pro-nuclear weapons proliferation mainstream majority of the Democratic Party was firmly denied control of the Executive Branch, the White House.

The political motivation for secrecy, as it regards the electorate, is obvious once it's brought up; but it has to be pointed out. In Point 19 this political motivation is brought up in the context of the Charter of the United Nations with its admonitions against tampering with freedoms of people around the globe – including electoral freedoms, which in many countries also encompasses the electorate's right to know the truth, and is considered a fundamental freedom.

It is an anathema for the Security Council to conclude agreements that would automatically exclude the electorates of the various Member States from knowing the truth; it is intolerable that the Security Council should take the side of domestic political parties that would lie to domestic populations in furtherance of an unjustifiable and illegitimate Security Council project; and the unjustifiable and illegitimate secrecy surrounding the project.

There are, of course, other political motivations behind the secrecy – but the intention to deceive the various electorates constitutes yet another United Nations Security Council infringement of the Charter of the United Nations in the Council's bid to assert its claims of phony authority. The text of _Security Council Permit to Bedlam_ , point 19, explains this in more detail and introduces other aspects along the same lines – but the previous presents the general argument.

* * * * *

POINT 20. Compelling all States without exception to violate, or to accept violations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Here again we review the difficulty the Security Council is faced with in attempting to compel States to do just anything it pleases to ordain – just anything it pleases to ordain like compelling all States without exception to violate international treaty and the international treaty of the Charter of the United Nations in order to expedite to a non-nuclear-weapon State the capacity to manufacture bad things:

Charter of the United Nations

*CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter...

Nothing in the Charter authorizes the Security Council to intervene, to force or compel States that have domestic laws against violating international treaty – to violate treaty, or do anything else that's against its own laws or existential interest.

It is one of the supreme Laws of the Land in the United States that violation of International Treaty is not permitted, although treaty can be altered or done away with by legal means of agreement.

The phrasing: " _Nothing contained in the present Charter shall... require the Members to submit such matters to settlement_..." stipulates that it is the Member State that is automatically presumed to be within its rights in preserving its jurisdiction; it is not required of the Member State to defend the validity of its position. Rather, if the Security Council wants to pretend something, and make an issue out of it when nations protest – then the burden of proof falls on the Security Council to present and demonstrate the validity of any of its resolutions which, for example, might attempt to compel Member States to violate the Charter of the United Nations and other international treaty with the objective of providing nuclear weapons capacity to a non-nuclear-weapon State.

If the President succeeding Barack Obama decides that he doesn't have any mandate from Congress to undertake approval of Iranian nuclear weapons related acquisitions (and he doesn't have any such mandate from the Congress); then the Security Council can't force him to continued United States involvement in such undertaking.

The United Nations can't force the United States to violate the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons even for a United Nations Security Council resolution that probably hasn't even been voted on yet, and may very well be confirmed as having been void upon conclusion – this confirmation coming possibly at some time in the not so distant future.

That is what Point 20 concerns itself with.

* * * * *

Point 21 Violation of the Charter of the United Nations Chapter XVIII: Article 108:

Actually, unlike Point 10, where the Security Council, as explained, might simply like to change the fundamental nature of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons by simply ignoring the treaty and therefore implicitly asserting that the Security Council is endowed with the unique power of disregarding the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty whenever it likes –as provided for and decreed in Resolution 2231;

Point 21 submits that the United Nations Security Council goes further in its treating with, and challenge to, the Charter of the United Nations. The United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 2231 actually rewrites an Article of the Charter of the United Nations. – Article 25. The United Nations Security Council rewrote Article 25 to say what the United Nations Security Council wanted it to say:

United States of America: draft resolution July 17, 2015

Underscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council's decisions,

As provided for in Resolution 2231, it is United Nations bureaucrats, appointed by and representing the States E3/EU+3 Iran member States – five of which States make of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The Security Council sponsors these bureaucrat representatives.

These bureaucrats so far, from November 2016 through June 2017, have approved nine Iranian acquisitions of nuclear weapons associated inventories of technologies, goods and services listed INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a; this in violation of the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_.

The Security Council has declared that whatever it decides, that becomes the new code to follow – that is the amendment that the Security Council wrote in Resolution 2231.

The Security Council was quick to follow through on its self-proclaimed extraordinary new Powers and established itself as a judicial body – delegating to an ad hoc judicial council – the Procurement Working Group – the authority to make judicial determinations as to when the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons applies and when it doesn't. The bureaucratic flunky representatives were called upon to determine what international law is and what it is not – something not even their own governments are empowered to do.

IN THE 1803 Supreme Court Case of Marbury v. Madison; in writing the deciding opinion of the Court, United States Supreme Court Justice Marshall made the following observations concerning the enumerated powers granted the branches of the United States Government by the United States Constitution:

...To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation...

...Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void...

This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

The Security Council is not a judicial body combined with some sort of magical legislative commission it to mandate violations of treaty and hence, violate the Charter of the United Nations. The council cannot legislate that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons will be violated on an ongoing case by case basis in order to expedite the means and capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons to a non-nuclear-weapon State;

It cannot set up its little group of weasel functionaries to pretend to the world that they are Judges with commissions to decide on an ongoing case-by-case basis when or not the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is applicable;

And then, having made their judicial determinations, the little weasel U.N. Flunky functionaries are allowed to simply get up and walk away without leaving behind any write up of their judicial opinions that legal scholars could study from and law professors could have the opportunity to share with their students; these pretend judges don't have to give any justification for their determinations to violate treaty; they're not even allowed to publicly reveal the exact material content of what they were deciding on.

WHEN REVIEWING LATE MEDIEVAL HISTORY, one might breath a sigh of relief that we don't live in primitive times like those back then. In those days anyone could be denounced in secret courts, Star Chamber Proceedings, Inquisitions and the like.

Humanity has made much progress over the centuries. In the 21sh Century, this enormous advancement in human progress is manifest in the institution representing and symbolizing the highest order of humanitarian principles – the United Nations.

This is an organization which has established a new kind of Secret Court. A Secret Court far more advanced that those of earlier days, because it comes with nuclear weapons attached;

A Secret Court made up of weasel flunkies; a Secret Court that assigns to weasel flunkies the ambitious task of judicial determination as to when to expedite distribution of weapons of mass destruction in violation of international treaty, this at their own pleasure while also under pressure from their unseen Masters residing safely in the respective home countries;

This is a Secret Court that is armed with the confidence and knowledge that the _Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons_ does not apply to anything the Weasel Court decides; a Secret Weasel Court that does not, nor has it any need to, justify or explain its decisions for the benefit of scholarly review and the edification of future generations;

The Obama-era leadership of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy is the throwback to the absolute monarchies of earlier centuries – except that those monarchies of distant centuries didn't have nuclear weapons technology to toss around as did Mr. Obama's administration.

The Obama-era leadership of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council for some reason evidently hasn't been too satisfied with the International Court of Justice or the Charter of the United Nations or the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The Obama-era leadership of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council decided to establish its own Procurement Working Group weasel judiciary to assist in making these on-going, "case-by-case," life changing determinations to expedite dissemination of the Lethal Weapon to a non-nuclear-weapon State.

The Security Council declared a fiction in Resolution 2231 that the Council can decide whatever it wants and all Member States are "obligated" to comply once the decision is "adopted," which effectively means that whatever the Security Council says is acceptable. The Security Council places no restraints on itself when it asserts this false imperative.

Not even the sky is the limit – there simply is no limit or restraint to what the Security Council might imagine; and in this case, the Security Council imagined a great deal.

WE HAVE JUST RECENTLY REVIEWED excerpts of the 1803 opinion of the Court in the Supreme Court case of _Marbury v. Madison_ wherein United States Supreme Court Justice John Marshall has alerted us to the reasoning as to why it must be that is for an independent Judiciary to make certain determination – why it is that " It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, handing down the opinion of the Court in the 1965 case _United States v. Brown_ ; in his rebuke of the United States Government for exceeding the boundaries of its authority, and speaking about the limits and restraints that written Constitutions (or Charters) place on different governmental departments, Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren observed the following regarding the function of the Courts:

...Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

There is a procedure, detailed in Charter of the United Nations; Chapter XVIII: Article 108, which defines the process through which the Charter of the United Nations mandate offered the Security Council could be revised and amended; possibly even giving the Security Council the overreaching Powers pretended in the phony commission it has already tried to invent for itself.

The Security Council has never applied to undertake that procedure – the Council simply amended its mandate on its own. Unless the Security Council can appear before the International Court with the amendment to the Charter of the United Nations supporting the fictitious commission the Council feigns; this writing submits that the loudly-mouthed empty conceits of the Security Council regarding its pretended authority are nothing for States to base any earth-shattering decisions on.

* * * * *

Point 22 The Security Council has no Authority to Commit or Bind Nations to Its Ambitious Centralized Planned Economy:

Just as the Security Council has no authority under the Charter of the United Nations to make any pretence of authority to exercise judicial application of the law – meaning that the Council has no authority to make any judicial determination as to what the law is or isn't – that being the role of another Department; the International Court of Justice;

Just as the Security Council has no authority to establish judicial standards or pretend judicial application – the Council is also not invested with any power whatsoever to make or enact any plans pertaining to the world economy.

World economic interests are under the authority of another department entirely.

* * * * *

The Charter of the United Nations assigns responsibility for coordinating international economic cooperation to the General Assembly. Chapters IX: _International Economic and Social Co-Operation_ – Articles 55 through 60, and X: _The Economic and Social Council_ – Articles 61 through 72 describe how this is organized.

Matters falling under Chapters IX and X are considered most generally outside of the sphere of competencies bestowed upon the Security Council – although there are a few slight exceptions as to when the Security Council can be involved.

Best evidence informs us the framers of the Charter of the United Nations understood, from the earliest inception of the Charter, the potential competition and the conflict of interests that might arise between armaments industries and peacetime industries. The framers evidently understood the financial burden wartime industries, and production, place on peacetime pursuits.

The Atlantic Charter, signed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill on 14 August 1941 is recognized as one of the earliest direct expressions of what would become the Charter of the United Nations. It is made up of eight guiding principles. The last sentence of the eighth point declares the following.

"They [the U.K., U.S.] will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measures which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armament."

We know, from our examination of the Supreme Court case of UNITED STATES v. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORPORATION, (1936), that even early in his first term as President of the United States, Mr. Franklin Roosevelt exhibited awareness and concern regarding the relation between arms dealing industries and peaceful economic development. This concern is reflected in the later Charter of the United Nations.

Not the U.K., the U.S. or the Soviet Union; none of those would allow that a Security Council would have any ties to any agreed upon international economic accord – nor would the Security Council be called upon to enforce anything in that area.

The Soviet Union, for its part, would never tolerate that its own socialist programs, or those of potential client States, be dominated by the economic theories of the detested Western ruling capitalist classes.

We return to Article 26 of the Charter of the United Nations bearing those issues in mind:

Charter of the United Nations

*CHAPTER V: THE SECURITY COUNCIL

FUNCTIONS and POWERS

Article 26

In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee... plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.

The statement is clear in its objective: "... _to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with_ _the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources_...;" any plan for the " _establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments_ " must be reviewed by all of the Member States (General Assembly) to ensure that whatever the Security Council comes up with, it will not conflict with the principle of " _the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources_ _._ "

One of the reasons for the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel authors' undertaking their evasion of fulfilling the requirements of Article 26 becomes evident.

The General Assembly was to have been officially presented with a plan which would, ideally, state clearly the various aspects of the Security Council's System for the regulation of armaments to Iran.

Had the Security Council done so, it may have been immediately internationally, publicly recognized that the Security Council was attempting to involve States, either voluntarily or by compulsion, to enter into the Security Council's world-wide economic scheme to formulate a system of competitive business transactions contracting around the promotion of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This could hardly be considered as complying with the principle of establishing and maintaining international peace "... _with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources_." Rather, it is clearly exactly the opposite.

The Security Council has no mandate to enter into the realm of the economy; and provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 provide an excellent negative lesson; one which demonstrates the good reason behind investing the General Assembly, and not the Security Council, with decision making authority on economic development projects. Entry into the arms-for-profit market area of the economy is manifest in the provisions of Resolution 2231 – a production of an unfriendly assortment of Obama-era leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council Oligarchy.

The Security Council is not authorized to establish any international economic system; and certainly not any system based upon and dependent on violating international arms control treaty in the interest of making a profit.

* * * * *

*SECTION C – _Notes and Observations in Summary_ ; Some further observations on the violation of peremptory norm of general international law. And most importantly, four points explaining why United Nations Security Council 2231, even with its parts which may be considered beneficial, must be confirmed as void in its entirety.

Point 22 Basic Violation – The Security Council proceeded to act on a void agreement.

This is a contributory point – basically covering some final aspects of the general violations manifest in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.

* * * * *

POINT 24. Inseparability of the Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.

This point is divided into four subsections, A through D, each describing an aspect of why it could be that the International Court of Justice would find that no part of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 could be separated out from the whole, and that the entire business be voided as a whole – even parts that may be considered legitimate or beneficial.

Any beneficial part might be reserved hopefully for restoration in a future – legitimate – negotiation.

* * * * *

A – Conflict with Peremptory Norm of General International Law:

A brief reiteration of this point with the observation that, if a part of the agreement is void as violating peremptory norm of general international law; then article 53 of the Law of Treaties says the whole thing goes.

B – No consent given to: "choice of differing provisions"

*Article 17 – _Consent to be bound by part of a treaty and choice of differing provisions_ ; of the _Vienna Convention on the law of treaties_ stipulates the following:

1\....the consent of a State to be bound by part of a treaty is effective only if the treaty so permits or the other contracting States so agree.

Resolution 2231 does not permit, anywhere in its text; that provisions are selective.

It is unclear if the Ministers of the Government of Iran, or any or all of the other Contracting States, would agree to a separating out of provisions. What would the JCPOA and Resolution 2231 be worth without U.N. approval of nuclear weapons capability to the Government of Iran?

C – The vote: Delegata Potestas Non Potest Delegari

This is basically a question of the incompetent original vote on the resolution. If the International Court of Justice were to decide that it was the case that the vote was invalid; and that there was any other reason in the provisions of the resolution that would disqualify the resolution; then the vote could not be retaken as the resolution had been already disqualified by the International Court of Justice – and to allow another vote would be to grant the Security Council Judicial authority to override a decision by the International Court of Justice. (There possibly has been enough display of this tendency of the Obama-era leaderships of the five permanent Member States of the Security Council to grab glory and fame by pretending authority it doesn't have.)

The International Court of Justice has no authority to delegate any judicial authority to the Security Council – that would be a violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

D – Impossibility of Performance

Provisions of Resolution 2231 make it impossible for the International Atomic Energy Agency to fulfill its mandate to inspect; report on; or prevent: "... _diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices_...;"

And further; this transfer to a non-nuclear-weapon State of the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons is by definition, a project having a military purpose. The Statute of the IAEA; Article III; C declares: "... _the Agency shall not make assistance to members subject to any political, economic, military, or other conditions incompatible with the provisions of this Statute_."

As all member States of the E3/EU+3 contingency currently sit on the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency; it would seem that those States, all currently favoring the dissemination of nuclear weapons manufacturing capability to Iran, would refuse, as they have so far, to honor the dictate of the Statute of the IAEA that the Agency should not take part in any military related nuclear development project.

Apparently it would not be acceptable to the E3/EU+3 contingency that Agency dismiss itself, retire itself from the affair as it should. Reviewing Article III of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons:

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

ARTICLE III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency...

The Statute of the IAEA declares the following:

STATUTE – of the IAEA

ARTICLE II Objectives

The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control **is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose**...

The illegitimate assistance rendered to the Ministers of the Government of Iran – this assistance of expediting nuclear weapons associated inventories to Iran can only be considered as rendering support for any military purpose. The E3/EU+3 membership of the IAEA Board of Governors has to keep the IAEA on the project despite that the project is being carried out for a military purpose, and despite that the project is in violation of the NPT. Without the continued symbolic presence of the IAEA on the job, the project might be considered to be even more in violation of the NPT than it already is.

However, the Court might have different priorities and a different perspective than the Security Council, and those Security Council members on the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Court might decide that, as the IAEA cannot honestly complete its task to verify that Iran is in compliance with international norms, and that the IAEA is being forced, by the abuses of the officers of the Board of Governors, to peripherally take part in a militarily oriented nuclear weapons project in violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – then Resolution 2231 makes legitimate performance on the part of the International Atomic Energy Agency impossible.

IAEA participation is required by treaty – the provisions installed in Resolution 2231 preventing IAEA from fulfilling its mandate, once again, voids the E3/EU+3 Iran Cartel arrangement renamed United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.

* * * * *

Chapter V – Petition and Remedy wraps up with a brief summary observation of possible consequences resulting from a confirmation by the Court that the JCPOA – hence the entire resolution – was void upon conclusion.
☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼

Security Council Permit to Bedlam

*Chapter VI - What is it Still Doing Here?

This Chapter is a review of what has come before – reiterating some of the dangers of allowing United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 to go uncontested as it proceeds towards achievement of its ultimate ends

This section examines that there really is no reason to fear taking this to Court. Many might suggest that the Ministers of the Government of Iran will retaliate if the resolution is thrown out in Court; that Ministers of the government of Iran might not want to negotiate another deal – and may decide to still seek a nuclear weapon without an intact resolution.

But there is nothing to fear there; the Ministers of Iran would be doing what was being done anyway, but under different circumstances. They would not have access to United Nations Security Council protection or sponsorship; they would not have the access to the advanced military hardware; both conventional, ballistic missile related (stealth, advanced guidance systems, etc.), and nuclear it had negotiated from the west; the ministers of the Government of Iran would have become too politically hot to handle, at least in the West, to make any such easy concessions to, such as those that had been made by the easily led Obama administration;

The political Ministers of the Government of Iran would be seeking a nuclear weapon in a world where nations had already been put on notice that those Ministers had already sought out, negotiated for, and got unheard of concessions of assistance from the United Nations; concessions demonstrating the corruption of a Security Council which would, for whatever reasons, eagerly violate international treaty in order to assist accommodating the objectives of the Ministers.

The world would be alerted to what had been attempted by the political Ministers of Iran; but also by the political leaderships of China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. To a greater or lesser degree – this could have political consequences for all political parties which had participated in, and promoted the results of the negotiation; and .could also result in substantial international backlash (which probably will occur anyway, the longer the resolution remains in play).

* * * * *

This writing submits that the price for continuing with the programs of the resolution is too high. Part of the price of supporting use of the United Nations as a tool for Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons capacity is the giving away of United Nations itself.

The United Nations, such it was once thought of, would probably be finished as a credible entity – any potential the developing United Nations might once have had could easily be wiped out by a continued official policy tolerating the international corruption required to support carrying out the crooked Resolution 2231 with its packaged assortment of egregious violations.

We have witnessed what the 114th Congress, and now possibly the 115th Congress of the United States had and has chosen for the United States.

The Legislature has refused to recognize the basic rule voiced by United States Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland – also reflected in the opinions of all three of the Supreme Court Justices visited in this writing – that basic rule being: "... _every... governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution_..."

The 114th Congress was clueless and paralyzed in response to Barack Obama's usurpation of the mechanism of the United States government to further his unconstitutional end to violate treaty and promote U.N. approval of Iranian nuclear weapons associated technologies.

Barack Obama couldn't get Congressional support for what he wanted – so the precious darling just went ahead and did what he wanted anyway. As it turned out, between October and December 2015, four procurement proposals for nuclear weapons associated INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a inventories were submitted for the benefit of Iran. All would be approved y the Security Council, and given the timeline allotted the Procurement Working Group for approval, all were approved in the final three months of the Obama administration. A consensus vote, which included Barack Obama's required United States vote in consensus, was obtained for each of these approvals.

That's correct! This was the same Barack Obama who assured the electorate that his "Iran Deal" would permanently prevent Iran from ever acquiring the bomb. It is so predictable how the rigorous requirements of cynical politics can so easily change a malleable politician's perspective on issues.

When it became clear, even towards the end of 2015, that Barack Obama intended to continue with his Iran project regardless of Congress or the Constitution – the 114th Congress responded by sinking further into its usual languid disposition.

For a few mighty days in September 2015 – the 114th Congress bravely tried to figure out what this deal was. Was it a treaty? Was it an Executive Order? Could a President do as he pleased because he had made an agreement with a foreign Power? Which way did it go? What was that thing anyway?

The 114th Congress, with all its vaunted expertise and its access to vaunted "experts" didn't have a clue as to one of the most basic rules: "... _every... governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution_..."

The 114th Congress couldn't figure out what to do about Obama's gross violations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT); so that Congress pretended throughout its term that it didn't know anything about it. The 115th Congress pretends it doesn't know anything about the Procurement Working Group mandate – the Congress pretends that no Congressperson alive must have heard about it.

The pretence – the excuse to avoid the issue – wears thin after a couple of years. Clearly the 114th and 115th Congress has shown a marked preference for inertia and avoidance over making a stand on an issue as serious as ongoing U.S. unconstitutional support for and participation in the distribution of nuclear weapons capacity to a non-nuclear-weapon State.

Barack Obama's actions were based on the unconstitutional unwritten "Executive Order" of his own invention; which he derived from his failed E3/EU+3 Iran group negotiation; a negotiation which expedites Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons associated technologies, goods, and services (the opposite of its publicized, marketed objective); a negotiation which publicly displays Barack Obama's insidiously displayed antagonism towards, and possible sense of intimidation and personal competitive insecurity, a triggered response to legitimate Constitutional processes and honesty in government.

The clueless 114th had no idea of how to deal with the unconstitutional "Executive Order." And now that the President succeeding Barack Obama is carrying on with the same game – the 115th Congress remains as lost and bewildered as the previous.

The 115th Congress continues in a procedural policy of ignoring the mounting Security Council approvals of Iranian INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a inventories; and the President succeeding Barack Obama seems blithely unaware that there might be growing public concern over the U.S. Government's continued support, in each consensus vote, for these Security Council sponsored acquisitions.

The 115th Congress of the United States has so far kept to its choice as to what it wants for the U.S. electorate.

The 115th wants the electorate to have a Congress paralyzed by indecision; a Congress that pretends it doesn't know anything about these weapons transactions instigated by the previous U.S. administration; a Congress, inhabited by two political parties so distinctly similar in their conclusion that the Congress would rather just be left alone so that Congresspersons might be allowed carry on in their usual antic of seeking prestige by browbeating and belittling the adversarial political party without a care given to remarking on the substance of realities which neither party would care to publicly discuss.

Just as the 115th Congress, at this point, has decided that the electorate should have a Congress which ignores that the ongoing weapons transactions instigated by and supported the United States are in violation of the United States Constitution;

Just as the 115th Congress prefers that the U.S. electorate be cursed with a Congress that treats the Constitution with about as much regard as an old moldy forgotten newspaper clipping left at the bottom of some drawer somewhere;

So too, it would seem; would the population of United Nations top level and low-ranking flunkies infesting the corridors of the various U.N. facilities, treat with the Charter of the United Nations – as though it were a dusty volume of half-baked fluttering ideals that never made any sense to any one of those high-class diplomats of the first quality anyway.

The danger is that Charter of the United Nations could be a lot more vulnerable than the United States Constitution – and the post Obama-era United Nations Security Council is currently working hard to dismantle and discredit it.

It is much easier for the for the U.S. electorate to put these tawdry, floor-crawling low-life snake oil charlatan U.S. politicians on notice that they might want to shape up on the issue; or start thinking now about what they would like to do after government work – although difficult, it's easier to do that than to sack the remarkable dishonesty and cynical misanthropic contempt that infamous, vile political leaderships of the various nations brandish in their squalid contempt for humanity;

It's much more difficult to get rid of the Political mind-set of the various international leaderships that would ignore the Charter of the United Nations in order to transform the facilities and campuses of the United Nations into mere quaint venues advantageous in lending political cover to shady arms deals particularly well designed to violate treaty.

Nevertheless, an association of Member States, all Party to the NPT could petition the International Court of Justice seeking remedy in open Court for this travesty of a United Nations Security Council resolution.

Even the menacing infringements of Annex A: JCPOA of Resolution 2231 – while holding the numerous other violations contained in the remainder of the resolution in reserve – there is even enough in the JCPOA itself which might convince the Court to confirm that lawless mess as void upon its conclusion (although material in the remainder of the resolution would be brought up as well).

The essential, central goal to bear in mind, for nations seeking remedy from the International Court of Justice in this case, is that a primary objective of the petition for Remedy and Cure is to restore, to re-establish, conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained and relied upon.

The Conclusion of this Writing has been reached...  
Nevertheless, the problem is persistent and remains unresolved.

Other Books by The Same Author:  
Jean-Marc LeBouquin

– Curiously Emboldened Incompetence –

– Security Council Permit to Bedlam –

