Pompeo to claim US didn’t quit Iran nuclear deal to make UN impose arms embargo

[Mithridates]

Exactly. Which means that legally they're still a participant to the JCPOA as an initial signatory.
And believe me. There's a lot that the Americans can do about it. In case you don't know, if only one UNSC member wants to activate the trigger mechanism, it will become activated unless it is vetoed by all other UNSC members in the deal. And if you think Europeans will veto it, good luck.

US was supposed to relieve any sanctions on Iran in return we limited our enriching capability. so if US reimposed sanctions on us it's a clear violation of agreement.

 

[TheImmortal]

It will be interesting to see what China or Russia will decide.

Realistically only they would risk doing any arms deals with Iran.

I’m not hopeful. I think they won’t risk US/EU pressure over a few billion in arms deals with Iran.

 

[Surenas]

I'm afraid that the status of the US as a signatory of the deal has not changed and since there hasn't been an addendum or something that legally changes the text of the deal to exclude the US, they're still a participant to the deal.

The UNSC is not a court, it is only an executive body that can make decisions in the form of resolutions. Some of these are legally-binding, but that does not mean that the UNSC can confer legal status to states.

The US and other parties to the JCPOA being described as participants is based on facts. The decision of the UNSC to frame Res.2231(2015) in this particular way of addressing the JCPOA participants is not a conferral of legal status, because the UNSC lacks such powers.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1254562761012625408

U.S. faces tough U.N. battle if it pushes plan to extend Iran arms embargo

“It’s very difficult to present yourself as a compliance watcher of a resolution you decided to pull out of,” said a European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Either you’re in or either you’re out.”

However, a State Department legal argument, seen by Reuters late last year, made the case that Washington could still spark a sanctions snapback because it is named as a deal participant in a 2015 U.N. resolution that enshrines the nuclear agreement.

Some U.N. diplomats said that while legal opinions on whether the United States could do this were split, ultimately it would be up to council members to decide whether to accept a U.S. complaint of “significant non-performance” by Iran.

It is a move likely to be challenged, diplomats said.

“It’s going to be messy from a Security Council standpoint because, regardless of what (Britain, Germany and France) think, Russia and China are not going to sign up to that legal interpretation,” said a European official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...lan-to-extend-iran-arms-embargo-idUSKCN22930E

 

[Aramagedon]

 

[QWECXZ]

US was supposed to relieve any sanctions on Iran in return we limited our enriching capability. so if US reimposed sanctions on us it's a clear violation of agreement.

Yeah. Well, NPT explicitly states that all members are entitled to uranium enrichment without stating any enrichment level. Yet Iran got sanctioned 4 times for uranium enrichment. And that was the explicit text of the NPT. So, good luck arguing in the UNSC with an argument like that.

The UNSC is not a court, it is only an executive body that can make decisions in the form of resolutions. Some of these are legally-binding, but that does not mean that the UNSC can confer legal status to states.

The US and other parties to the JCPOA being described as participants is based on facts. The decision of the UNSC to frame Res.2231(2015) in this particular way of addressing the JCPOA participants is not a conferral of legal status, because the UNSC lacks such powers.

The UNSC is not a court, the International Court of Justice is a court. And the UNSC is simply above it and can piss all over the judgements by the ICJ, which is completely in compliance with what I said. However, the JCPOA is so poorly worded that I doubt we could bring our case to the ICJ either.

 

[Surenas]

The UNSC is not a court, the International Court of Justice is a court. And the UNSC is simply above it and can piss all over the judgements by the ICJ, which is completely in compliance with what I said. However, the JCPOA is so poorly worded that I doubt we could bring our case to the ICJ either.

What I tried to say is that the notion of legality does not apply in this case. Even if the US can argue that it is a participant in the original agreement based on the sole fact of textual reference, the matter of being participant is principally a factual matter, or in the case of the UNSC, a political one. The other countries in the agreement are not likely going to accept US' arguments for access to JCPOA's provision based on quasi legality considering the fact that it publicly, explicitly and factually abandoned the deal.

And US officials know this very well. From 2018:

Shortly before Trump announced plans to withdraw from the pact, National Security Advisor John Bolton suggested to reporters that the United States would not turn to the U.N. Security Council to remake the nuclear accord because “we’re out of the deal.”

“At this time, there’s no plan to go up to New York” to push for a snapback of sanctions, a senior State Department official explains. “The United States is out of the deal … so we’re not going to use a provision as if we were still a participant in the deal to invoke the snapback.”

And:

Bridgeman and other legal experts say there is a compelling legal case to be made that the United States has forgone its right to snap back sanctions on Iran since Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal.

“I don’t think they can use the snapback anymore because the president has declared that the U.S. is no longer a participant in the deal,” says Larry Johnson, a former U.N. lawyer who now teaches at Columbia Law School. “In order to invoke the snapback provision, you have to be a participant.”

Bridgeman agrees that “there is now a strong argument that we can no longer avail ourselves of snapback.” But she concedes that there is enough legal wiggle room in the resolution that the United States could present a good-faith argument that it retains the rights to reimpose sanctions in the future.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/10/the-silver-lining-to-trump-pulling-out-of-the-iran-deal/

 

[QWECXZ]

What I tried to say is that the notion of legality does not apply in this case. Even if the US can argue that it is a participant in the original agreement based on the sole fact of textual reference, the matter of being participant is principally a factual matter, or in the case of the UNSC, a political one. The other countries in the agreement are not likely going to accept US' arguments for access to JCPOA's provision based on quasi legality considering the fact that it publicly, explicitly and factually abandoned the deal.

Yes, I understand your point and I agree with you, but I'm afraid that the US will persuade other permanent members to follow them. As I said, Iran's nuclear case should've never left the IAEA and be referred to the UNSC. The UNSC issued 4 rounds of extreme sanctions on Iran for something that Iran was entitled to by the NPT.

In short, I highly doubt that the UN embargo on arms deals with Iran would ever be terminated without a regime change in Iran.

 

[Surenas]

Yes, I understand your point and I agree with you, but I'm afraid that the US will persuade other permanent members to follow them. As I said, Iran's nuclear case should've never left the IAEA and be referred to the UNSC. The UNSC issued 4 rounds of extreme sanctions on Iran for something that Iran was entitled to by the NPT.

In short, I highly doubt that the UN embargo on arms deals with Iran would ever be terminated without a regime change in Iran.

I doubt that the US will manage to persuade the other permanent members to completely nullify the JCPOA through its snapback provision. There is a reason why Iran is threatening to leave the NPT in such case, which is likely going to be enough reason for the other - specifically European - signatories to leave the JCPOA intact for the foreseeable future.

The UN embargo on arms deal will be lifted, either de jure or de facto.

 

[QWECXZ]

I doubt that the US will manage to persuade the other permanent members to completely nullify the JCPOA through its snapback provision. There is a reason why Iran is threatening to leave the NPT in such case, which is likely going to be enough reason for the other - specifically European - signatories to leave the JCPOA intact for the foreseeable future.

The UN embargo on arms deal will be lifted, either de jure or de facto.

Well, the US persuaded other members to pass 4 rounds of unjustified sanctions on Iran. I am pretty sure that they can do it again.

Not if the UNSC members vote to extend the sanctions on Iran ;-)

Oh. And one more thing: Iran won't leave the NPT in any case. If the Iranian regime had the balls to do it, they would've done it after Trump sanctioned our oil exports and the Europeans did nothing to save the deal after their "ultimatum".

 

[Surenas]

Well, the US persuaded other members to pass 4 rounds of unjustified sanctions on Iran. I am pretty sure that they can do it again.

Not if the UNSC members vote to extend the sanctions on Iran ;-)

The Obama administration was much more diplomatic adept to convince the other members to put sanctions on Iran as part of a strategy to force Iran to the negotiating table. And those days Russia, under leadership of western-orientated and liberal Medvedev, was busy with a naive political outreach to the Western world, which failed miserably.

The Trump administration does not have a similar goodwill in Europe now nor do Russia and China want to hold a resolution intact that is detrimental to their interests.

 

[QWECXZ]

The Obama administration was much more diplomatic adept to convince the other members to put sanctions on Iran for tactical reasons. And those days Russia, under leadership of western-orientated and liberal Medvedev, was busy with a naive political outreach to the Western world, which failed miserably.

The Trump administration does not have a similar goodwill in Europe nor do Russia and China want to hold a resolution intact that is detrimental to their interests.

And yet for some reason, the undiplomatic Trump administration has successfully convinced the world to follow US unilateral sanctions on Iran. The world's countries followed and follow the US sanctions on Iran not because of diplomacy, but because of political and economic interests. You do realize that the US sanctions on Iran serve the interests of Russia as a major energy supplier as well. Right?

If you believe in 'goodwill' when it comes to politics, you are dangerously optimistic. And as I said, there is absolutely nothing that Iran can do at this point. We're checkmated. The Iranian regime does not have the balls to pull out of the NPT and they don't have a good excuse for that anymore. Had they wanted to do it, they should've done it earlier right after US pulled out of the deal and the Europeans ignored our 60 day ultimatums.

 

[Surenas]

And yet for some reason, the undiplomatic Trump administration has successfully convinced the world to follow US unilateral sanctions on Iran. The world's countries followed and follow the US sanctions on Iran not because of diplomacy, but because of political and economic interests. You do realize that the US sanctions on Iran serve the interests of Russia as a major energy supplier as well. Right?

The Trump administration has not convinced any country in the world to follow the US on its Iranian sanction policy. It is just that no company wants to continue to have economic relations with Iran if that would mean none or less access to the American market.

The fact that Russia has once support sanctions on Iran does not mean that they will do so in the future. Different times, different geopolitical outlook. Moreover, Iran keeps the pro-American alliance from creeping on its southern front with its foreign policy of resistance that has proven to be a negative force for American interests in the Middle East.

If you believe in 'goodwill' when it comes to politics, you are dangerously optimistic. And as I said, there is absolutely nothing that Iran can do at this point. We're checkmated. The Iranian regime does not have the ball to pull out of the JCPOA and they don't have a good excuse for that anymore. Had they wanted to do it, they should've done it earlier right after US pulling out of the deal and the Europeans ignoring our ultimatums.

Diplomatic trade craft and goodwill are factors in international politics.

Iran is far from being checkmated. If you think otherwise, you have an incorrect view of the particular interests of the relevant members in sight, as well as the policies that Iran still could bring out to increase leverage.

Iran is playing the long-game, and the end of the arms embargo has likely been a significant factor for Iran to hold back with its nuclear policy. That is why the US is panicking, and is bringing out all diplomatic and quasi legal instruments to prevent that from happening.

 

[QWECXZ]

The Trump administration has not convinced any country in the world to follow the US on its Iranian sanction policy. It is just that no company wants to continue to have economic relations with Iran if that would mean none or less access to the American market.

And how is that different from persuading other countries not to trade with Iran? The outcome seems completely the same to me. You just rephrased what I said I think.

The fact that Russia has once support sanctions on Iran does not mean that they will do so in the future. Different times, different geopolitical outlook. Moreover, Iran keeps the pro-American alliance from creeping on its southern front with its foreign policy of resistance that has proven to be a negative force for American interests in the Middle East.

Well, what do you think has changed since 2009 that the geopolitical outlook is different now? If anything, Russia's geopolitical outlook prefers the US to focus on Iran as a threat than Russia. So, they'd rather do something that tensions between Iran and the US stay the same. This is good for their economy as well.

Diplomatic trade craft and goodwill are factors in international politics.

Really? If you say so. I think if your hands are empty, you have no chance at diplomacy. And our hands are empty at the moment. Our economy has not recovered from US 2018 sanctions yet. It was expected to recover in 2020, but covid-19 will obviously delay our recovery. We don't have enough enriched uranium reserves to have a hand for diplomacy and we are not producing any HALEU at the moment either.

Iran is far from being checkmated. If you think otherwise, you have an incorrect view of the particular interests of the relevant members in sight, as well as the policies that Iran still could bring out to increase leverage.

Then correct me please. We got lucky that the covid-19 brought down the oil prices otherwise there would've been a huge economic gap between us and our regional rivals. The US and Europe are quite happy with the status quo and the clock is ticking in their favor. Is Iran happy with the status quo?

Iran is playing the long-game, and the end of the arms embargo has likely been a significant factor for Iran to hold back with its nuclear policy. That is why the US is panicking, and is bringing out all diplomatic and quasi legal instruments to prevent that from happening.

No. Iran was playing the long-game before the JCPOA. Right now Iran is just trying to weather the storm and keep itself safe.

 

[zartosht]

It will be interesting to see what China or Russia will decide.

Realistically only they would risk doing any arms deals with Iran.

I’m not hopeful. I think they won’t risk US/EU pressure over a few billion in arms deals with Iran.

US propaganda is going all out anti-china. both democratic and republican (but most fiercly reppublican)

this covid 19 is a pearl harbor scenario. there is going to be huge geopolitical ramifications. there may very will be a new cold war between China and the US after this.

Iran will be a huge winner in this.. there are senior establishment figures like Albright and even Zionists like Feinstein openly calling for trump to approve Irans IMF loan.

Obama made a deal with Iran that just about anyone but trump would have kept.

this means the US establishment realizes that Iran is a key country in their future rivalry with China. and were on the road to reconciliation before that orange idiot showed up..

I highly doubt China and Russia are going to sell Iran out anymore on the UN front.. the world has changed

 

[Kastor]

This idea of Pompeo shows how out of touch he is with the group think of the UNSC.....it doesn't matter, what the legal mumbo jumbo says....at the end of the day China and Russia will shoot that idea down so fast it will be done before lunch is served.