For one thing, Trump declared more than two years ago that the US would no longer participate in the nuclear deal – formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. However, the administration now claims, in essence, that because a UN resolution on the agreement never specifically states what happens if one of the participants leaves the deal, it still has the right to reopen the sanctions.
Confused? You have a world of business. Here’s how we get to this point.
What is the status of Iran’s nuclear deal?
The deal is an internationally negotiated deal reached in 2015 during Barack Obama’s presidency. It lifts many US and international sanctions on Iran in exchange for severe restrictions on the country’s nuclear program.
The deal was negotiated by the United States, Iran, Germany, Britain, France, China and Russia. The European Union and the UN also play important roles. The UN Security Council adopted a resolution, no. 2231, which anchored the agreement, while also establishing the procedure for re-imposing sanctions (the snapback) if it is found that Iran has violated the terms.
Trump took office with complaints that the agreement in the Obama era was too narrow and too liberal for Iran. He withdrew America from the deal in May 2018, and officially reintroduced the US nuclear related sanctions on Tehran. In the years that followed, he imposed additional sanctions on the country as part of the administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy. Many of the U.S. sanctions also penalize non-U.S. Companies and governments doing business with Iran, leaving few entities outside Iran willing to invest in the country.
Initially, Iran sought to maintain its end to the deal, even after the US withdrew. Tehran had hoped that European countries, furious at Trump’s withdrawal, could find ways to circumvent US sanctions and give Iran the economic relief it needed. But no serious relief has come. That Iran has taken steps that violate certain terms of the deal, such as repaying work with uranium enrichment on a major nuclear site, but it has not yet been fully withdrawn.
Why is Trump trying to set up the ‘snapback’ now?
As part of the nuclear deal, the countries involved agreed to allow a conventional arms embargo on the UN to expire this October. The Trump administration says it has determined not to allow Iran to buy such weapons. While some countries, including America’s European allies, are sympathetic, others, such as Russia and China, have shown interest in selling arms to Iran.
Last week, the US sought to extend the life of the embargo through a UN Security Council resolution. It failed in humiliating way. Of the 15 council members, only the Dominican Republic voted with the United States. Russia and China voted against, while the other members, including longtime Allied allies Germany, France and Britain, abstained.
Knowing his resolution did not stand much chance, the Trump administration is now moving to re-impose the conventional arms embargo by triggering the snapback mechanism in the nuclear deal. The problem is that the other countries that helped with the drafting of the agreement say that the United States does not have the state to do anything because it was fired from the deal more than two years ago – it is not longer a participant, they say.
Foreign officials say privately that they believe Trump and his aides have a motive besides keeping Iran from acquiring conventional weapons: The Trump team wants to use the snapback to completely kill the nuclear deal before an election that the White House could give to Democrats who want to rejoin the agreement.
Is the US a participant in the nuclear deal or not?
When Trump announced that the US was leaving the agreement, the fact sheet sent by the White House was titled, “President Donald J. Trump Ends US Participation in an Unacceptable Iran Deal.” That was just one of many examples of the administration, written orally, saying that the US was no longer a participant.
Now, the administration says it reserves the right to trigger the snapback of sanctions based on the language of UN Security Council Resolution 2231. That resolution refers to the “participants” of the deal as the countries that initially co-sponsored the deal, along with the EU. It says a “participating state” could file the complaint which would lead to re-imposition of sanctions. Trump aides argue that the definition of ‘participant’ ‘resolution’ is static and that, because the US was one of the countries listed under that category, it still has the right to use the snapback .
The other participants rejected this analysis. However, even some foreign officials who say they can see the legal logic behind it claim that it is not legitimate.
Besides, they point out, the UN Security Council is not a court of law. It is a political body. And the Iran deal itself is not a treaty; it is a political arrangement. The Americans can explain any legal arguments they want, say foreign diplomats. The rest of the world can just ignore them.
No less a person than John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser and longtime hard-liner over Iran, has called the administration’s position “too nice by half” – and warned that the United States will regret trying to snapback under such dual circumstances.
Let’s say the US is trying to trigger the snapback. What then?
At the moment, the Iran deal has been badly damaged and is barely working. An American attempt to trigger the snapback could put the deal in a coma, with “Schrodinger’s Cat” -style questions about whether it is alive or dead.
Procedure seems to be that other countries can not do to stop the United States from submitting the notification to the Security Council that sets the snapback process in motion, analysts say. Once that complaint is filed, a 30-day countdown begins before the sanctions (including the arms embargo) are intended to be reinstated.
