After the defeat of the Security Council .. Can Washington activate the mechanism for re-imposing Iranian sanctions?

The UN Security Council’s rejection of a US draft resolution extending the arms embargo on Iran is a major blow to US diplomacy.

The council’s broad rejection of Washington’s move prompted US President Donald Trump’s pledge to respond to the Security Council’s refusal, by resorting to the “Snapback” mechanism that allows for the re-imposition of all UN sanctions on Iran on the grounds that Tehran has violated the pledges stipulated in the nuclear agreement.

But the withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear agreement in 2018 raised widespread doubts about Washington's eligibility to launch these sanctions unilaterally, as countries allied to the United States see that resorting to the Snack mechanism would mean a complete Iranian withdrawal and the elimination of the historic agreement that Iran signed with the major countries in 2015.

Washington is also witnessing a dispute between a team in favor of activating the sanctions mechanism, and another that questions the legality of the American effort to impose these sanctions, because Washington already withdrew two years ago from the nuclear agreement concluded with Iran in 2015.

Some experts considered that the failure of the United States to pass a decision to extend the draft resolution on extending the arms embargo on Iran was unprecedented, as only two countries voted in favor of the draft resolution, the United States and the Dominican Republic, Russia and China opposed it, while 11 countries, including some of Washington's allies such as Britain and France, abstained. .

Dennis Ross, a former official in the administration of President Barack Obama, tweeted, "What the vote in the Security Council showed is that the United States, not Iran, is politically isolated."

What the vote showed is that it is the US not Iran that is politically isolated.

- Dennis Ross (@AmbDennisRoss) August 16, 2020

Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the US State Department, Morgan Ortagus, confirmed in an interview with "Fox News" that "dropping the US draft resolution to extend the arms embargo on Iran in the Security Council represents a loss of moral courage."

In turn, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy tweeted, saying that the failure of the US draft resolution to extend the arms embargo on Iran in the Security Council constitutes a terrible defeat.

"It was not a loss, it was a terrible defeat. Of the 15 members of the Security Council, only the Dominican Republic voted with us. This is how America has become amazingly weak, and this is how the rest of the world views Trump's disastrous strategy toward Iran," Murphy added in a series of tweets on Twitter. .

The embarrassing defeat of the Iran arms embargo resolution is a warning of the risks of putting people with no diplomatic experience, like Kelly Kraft, in the most important global posts. https://t.co/O2G5UZenO5

- Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) August 15, 2020

According to Security Council Resolution 2231, any country participating in the nuclear agreement concluded with Iran in 2015 can resort to the "Snapback" mechanism to re-impose sanctions on Iran. However, the possibility of the United States activating this mechanism raises controversy because Washington withdrew from the agreement by a decision by Trump himself.

Anthony Blinken, a former national security advisor and one of the architects of the nuclear deal with Iran, indicated that his country could not use the Snapback mechanism.

Blinken said in a tweet to him, "The possibility of resorting to activating the Snapback mechanism is limited to the countries participating in the agreement, and after withdrawing from the agreement, the United States no longer has any rights that it can claim. We would not have withdrawn from an agreement that was effective and resolute."

The remedies in the resolution are available to "participant" countries. In pulling out of the agreement the WH literally titled its statement "Ending US Participation in the JCPOA." It would have been wise to stick with an agreement that was working and has teeth. https://t.co/Ro12OdqtNY

- Antony Blinken (@ABlinken) August 16, 2020

However, expert Richard Goldberg, from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and is known to be hostile to Iran, confirmed that Washington has the right to resort to the Snack mechanism in accordance with Resolution 2231.

Goldberg does not believe that Security Council Resolution 2231 obliges states to comply with the nuclear agreement with Iran in order to be able to resort to what the resolution stipulated.

According to Goldberg's study, "other provisions in Security Council Resolution 2231 are binding, including those relating to sanctions and temporary restrictions imposed on Iran, and procedures for reversing previous decisions if Iran does not substantially implement its obligations."

The study also stated, "The United States has supported all the binding provisions of Security Council Resolution 2231, and for this reason the United States continues to fully comply with Security Council Resolution 2231 and reserves the right to withdraw from sanctions and re-impose previous restrictions imposed on Iran."

SNAPAC is the mechanism for re-imposing UN sanctions on the Republic of Iran due to its nuclear activities, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2231, which was issued in support of the nuclear agreement with Iran in 2015.

Under the Sannak mechanism, many sanctions and restrictions are re-imposed, which were issued in accordance with previous Security Council resolutions, which were suspended by Resolution 2231, and among these decisions: Resolution 1696 (issued in 2006), Resolution 1737 (issued in 2006), Resolution 1747 (Issued in 2007), Resolution 1803 (issued in 2008), Resolution 1835 (issued in 2008), Resolution 1929 (issued in 2010).

Among the sanctions and restrictions that could be re-imposed on Iran:

• An unlimited ban on the transfer of conventional weapons to and from Iran.
•  An indefinite ban on international support for Iran's missile program.
•  An explicit ban on all Iranian tests related to the development of nuclear-capable missiles.
•  Request to stop all fertilization-related activities.
•  Banning the travel and freezing of assets of those responsible for the Iranian nuclear and missile programs.

Security Council Resolution 2231 ended the impact of previous resolutions on Iran and included major changes to sanctions and restrictions imposed on it.

The decision also canceled the demand that Iran suspend all enrichment-related activities. Instead of preventing Iran from conducting missile tests, Security Council Resolution 2231 merely pleaded with Iran not to undertake such activities.

In addition, the resolution set expiration dates for the previously unspecified restrictions, as the arms and travel bans are lifted in mid-October 2020, restrictions on missile programs are lifted in 2023, and a wide range of nuclear restrictions are lifted by The year is 2031.

The process of reinstating previous sanctions halted by Resolution 2231 begins when a “participating country in (the nuclear agreement with Iran) or what is known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - as defined in Security Council Resolution 2231- informs the Security Council of an issue or violation that is believed to fall within” Carry out major obligations under the agreement. "

And unless the Security Council takes a decision within 30 days regarding the complaint, all provisions of previous Security Council resolutions against Iran, which were terminated under Resolution 2231, will be activated.

Eric Brown of the Center for Policy and Strategy in Washington believes in a study that "Washington's decision to resort to the Snapback mechanism will be a fatal and costly strategic mistake, and it will come with a set of negative consequences."

Brown believes that activating this mechanism would push Iran to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would lead to a nuclear Iran similar to North Korea's model, soon.