Matt Drudge has broken out the siren for this one, although we’re careful now not to associate “violation of federal law” with any sort of punishment or consequences.

Fox News’ James Rosen reports tonight that “some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal” have determined that the deal violates federal law, in part because of legislation that President Obama himself signed into law in 2012.

Rosen writes:

At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. shalllicense non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.

In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called foreign sub loophole.

Legal analysts say the Iran deal could be in trouble in court, as it is not a treaty butan executive agreementthatreceived no vote of ratification from Congress.

RedState’s Joe Cunningham isn’t expecting much to transpire either. He writes that the White House “know what they are doing is not at all legal, and they dont care .The White House wont alter its course, and things will be able to go ahead without prosecution because this administration believes more in itself than it does actual law.”

Yes. Further negotiations with the United States are banned. And why not? Iran got everything it wanted and more.

* * *

Read more: http://twitchy.com/2015/10/08/does-presidents-own-2012-legislation-make-iran-deal-a-violation-of-federal-law-does-it-matter/