What To Do About a Non-Compliant Iran?

At the Washington Post Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan lays out the case that Iran just isn’t complying with the terms of our agreement with them:

First, Annex 1 of the JCPOA limits Iran’s stock of heavy water — a catalyst for nuclear weapons. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are at least two instances of Iran knowingly exceeding its heavy water limit — in February and November of last year. Instead of holding Iran to account for the violations, the Obama administration bought up the illicit material for $8.6 million.

Second, Annex B of U.N Security Council Resolution 2231 — which serves as the implementing resolution for the JCPOA and its legal framework — calls on Iran not to undertake any “activity related to ballistic missiles” for eight years. However, Iran has conducted five ballistic missile tests since the deal was finalized.

Third, Annex B of the implementing resolution also bans certain individuals from travel to foreign countries. Yet nothing was done when it was discovered that Iran’s Quds Force commander, Qasem Soleimani, who is on that list, traveled to Russia to meet with President Vladimir Putin after the deal was signed. As recently as December, Soleimani was seen visiting Aleppo.

Finally, Annex B also states that the Security Council must approve “services, advice, other services or assistance,” related to the sale of conventional weapons. It’s been widely reported that Russia is in talks to sell Iran $10 billion worth of conventional weapons, including advanced tanks, artillery systems, planes and helicopters. Iran has not asked for such approval.

All of that sounds pretty damning to me but I was a skeptic about the deal anyway. I thought it was too lopsided in favor of the Iranians and demanded questionable assumptions about Iran’s good faith.

What if anything should be done about our deal with Iran and Iran’s non-compliance with Security Council resolutions? Is the U. S. fully compliant with the terms of our agreement with Iran?

8 comments… add one
  • Andy Link

    There’s a difference between the JPOA and the implementing resolution. The first item is a JPOA violation, albeit a small one. The rest are potential violations depending on perspective. The language in Annex B of the resolution gives a lot of room for lawyering. IMO the language in the resolution was intentionally designed to do that.

  • Jan Link

    What do lay people really know about this deal, anyway? During the initial negotiations we were told not to worry, that there were strict perimeters creating unwavering contingencies insuring proper oversight over Iran fulfilling it’s part of the bargain. Eventually, as the deal was being processed and further finessed, it appeared conditions were either weakened or entirely compromised. Then, there was talk of a secret side agreement, which hadn’t passed congressional mustard.

    Nevertheless, the US continued to follow through on most everything Iran wanted, even when the IAEA reported back that iran wasn’t abiding by it’s own promises.

    IMO, the ballistic missile testing is very troubling, especially since the last administration seemed to shrug it off, and now the new administration is abruptly putting Iran “on notice.” Oftentimes whiplash kinds of policy changes, can incite a flashpoint reaction. It’s gives reasons to be concerned.

  • Oftentimes whiplash kinds of policy changes, can incite a flashpoint reaction. It’s gives reasons to be concerned.

    Despite our chaotic, contradictory, and conflicted political system historically we’ve maintained an astonishing amount of continuity in our foreign policy. Whether that continues to be the case remains to be seen.

  • steve Link

    So, it is pretty clear that Iran actually is following through on most of its nuclear deal, and that our monitoring is working. We knew they had overproduced and resolved it.

    2231 is the Security Council resolution, not the deal reached between Iran and 7 (6?) other countries. A lot of it is not legally binding AFAICT. It is a common tactic of critics of the nuclear deal to combine these two as though they are the same.

    Steve

  • The Security Council resolution is the implementing resolution. If Iran is not in compliance with it, it is not in compliance with the deal.

    Your response suggests that Sen. Sullivan’s remarks have a partisan or ideological motivation. It seems to me there’s more to them than that.

  • Andy Link

    Dave,

    Here are the Sen. Sullivan’s criticisms in turn:

    – Ballistic Missiles. In the UNSC resolution it says this: “…calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”

    “calls upon” is not considered legally binding in UN word-speak. Additionally, “ballistic missiles” is caveated to those “designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.” Iran argues that it’s missiles are conventional weapons and there is no way to prove them wrong absent a test that obviously carries a specific type of reentry vehicle.

    On the travel ban, the resolution says this: “requires all States to take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into or transit through their territories of the individuals currently maintained on the 2231 List. This provision shall not oblige a State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.”

    “Requires” is binding, but not on Iran for its own nationals. Soleimani going to Syria and Russia means those two countries violated the resolution (Soleimani has also been to Iraq).

    Finally on weapons sales – Sen. Sullivan states that Russia is “in talks” with Iran. Those reports are about a year old and come from the Russian propaganda press and were never confirmed. More authoritative figures inside Russia have suggested the Russians and Iranians will have a plan in place for conventional weapons acquisitions in 4 years, which is when the embargo will end.

    So, the resolution doesn’t inhibit talks – or really what amount to rumors about talks – it inhibits the actual sale, transfer, etc. of weapons without UN authorization. Those sales haven’t happened yet and are unlikely to happen until that provision expires.

    To me that is all a thin reed.

  • Thank you, Andy. That’s very informative.

  • steve Link

    Dave- Partisan? Maybe, but at least biased. My interpretation of the resolution (IANAL) is that it basically replaced all of the other UN resolutions about nukes. Not sure it was needed per se for the nuclear deal to go through, and it doesn’t really require much of anyone AFAICT. The good stuff is in the nuke deal.

    Steve

Leave a Comment