The Absurdity of US Foreign Policy - Iran

US terminates 1955 'Treaty of Amity' with Iran | DW |

The decision comes just hours after the UN top court ordered the US to lift sanctions on humanitarian goods to Iran. Tehran had dragged Washington to the court, saying the sanctions violate the 1955 friendship agreement.

Pompeo's announcement follows a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations' top court, on Wednesday ordering the United States to lift sanctions on humanitarian goods to Iran.

President Donald Trump in May announced a renewal of tough US sanctions on the Islamic Republic after abandoning the multilateral Iran nuclear agreement over its ballistic missile program.

Iran filed a lawsuit against the US at the ICJ in July, arguing that the sanctions violate the friendship agreement signed in 1955 between the two countries when Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was in power. The treaty, which established economic relations and consular rights between the two nations, continued to remain in force following the 1979 Islamic Revolution despite diplomatic tensions between Tehran and Washington.

Long overdue

Pompeo said the practical fallout from the decision to terminate the decades-old treaty remains to be seen.

"This marked a useful point
 for us to demonstrate the
absolute absurdity of the treaty."

CASE CONCERNING UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND CONSUEAR STAFF IN TEHRAN
(UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. IRAN)

The case was brought before the Court by Application by the United States following the occupation of its Embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants on 4 November 1979, and the capture and holding as hostages of its diplomatic and consular staff. On a request by the United States for the indication of provisional measures, the Court held that there was no more fundamental prerequisite for relations between States than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies, and it indicated provisional measures for ensuring the immediate restoration to the United States of the Embassy premises and the release of the hostages. In its decision on the merits of the case, at a time when the situation complained of still persisted, the Court, in its Judgment of 24 May 1980, found that Iran had violated and was still violating obligations owed by it to the United States under conventions in force between the two countries and rules of general international law, that the violation of these obligations engaged its responsibility, and that the Iranian Government was bound to secure the immediate release of the hostages, to restore the Embassy premises, and to make reparation for the injury caused to the United States Government. The Court reaffirmed the cardinal importance of the principles of international law governing diplomatic and consular relations. It pointed out that while, during the events of 4 November 1979, the conduct of militants could not be directly attributed to the Iranian State -- for lack of sufficient information -- that State had however done nothing to prevent the attack, stop it before it reached its completion or oblige the militants to withdraw from the premises and release the hostages. The Court noted that, after 4 November 1979, certain organs of the Iranian State had endorsed the acts complained of and decided to perpetuate them, so that those acts were transformed into acts of the Iranian State.