Stanford’s Allen Weiner examines how the U.S. war with Iran raises questions about the president’s power to wage war and negotiate peace.
---
The American war with Iran began with ambitious goals, including preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and potentially bringing about regime change. But the conflict may well be leading to a very different outcome, according to Stanford Law School's Allen Weiner, a scholar of international and human rights law and former State Department lawyer. Just prior to the recent collapse of the tenuous cease fire, Weiner joined podcast host Professor Pam Karlan to discuss how the conflict is arguably strengthening Iran’s most repressive factions while putting economic and diplomatic pressure on the United States.
Weiner traces how the conflict grew out of the collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal, asks whether the new agreement with Iran amounts to a weaker version of that accord, and considers how ceasefires and shifting legal rationales have allowed the administration to sidestep Congress and keep the War Powers clock from running out.
Connect:
Chapters
00:00:00 Introduction
00:02:09 Back to the JCPOA—The 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal
00:04:23 From "worst deal ever" to a weaker one
00:04:51 Two rounds of strikes
00:07:11 Regime change that wasn't
00:08:40 The Strait of Hormuz and the global economy
00:09:49 Emboldened by Venezuela
00:11:33 Israel in, NATO out
00:12:27 The new MOU
00:14:31 Israel left off the page
00:17:38 Free transit, for now
00:19:06 Treaty or political commitment?
00:21:36 The War Powers loophole
00:24:26 Can Congress actually enforce the War Powers Act?
00:28:12 Conclusion
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
