European Allies Seek to Reinstate U.N. Sanctions on Iran

The European allies have initiated the process to reinstate stringent U.N. sanctions on Iran, a measure which if carried out successfully, could ensure stability in the Middle East, disrupt the defense association between Iran and Russia, and equip us with a stronger negotiation position in talks concerning Ukraine. The obstacles to its completion and efficacy are set to be the countering strategies of Moscow and Tehran, hence, driving the necessity for decisive American leadership. The sanctions under the microscope are six U.N. Security Council resolutions which were issued between 2006 and 2010, on account of Iran’s contravention of nuclear safety guidelines.

These resolutions, among other actions, outlaw Iran’s uranium enrichment exercises, apply a two-way arms ban on its atomic, ballistic missile, and ordinary weaponry, and hit key authorities conducting these operations with sanctions. All member nations of the U.N. are obligated to implement these prohibitions within their jurisdictions. Further, they form the legal cornerstone for American and European secondary sanctions designed to hinder the Iranian administration’s most perilous activities.

The 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement led to a temporary suspension of these sanctions, in the aftermath of which Iran accelerated its missile and drone R&D activities. There was also an increase in Iranian weapons distribution across the Middle East and even up to Russia recently. Assistance in terms of missile and air defense has been coming in from Beijing to Tehran, coupled with significant income from Iran’s energy exports to China.

These factors point out why top Iranian officials express grave concern that their nation may simply not possess the necessary financial strength or military capability to withstand a comeback of U.N. sanctions, as they deem it far more detrimental than warfare. Moreover, Russia is envisaged to experience a negative impact since Iran’s military support bolsters Putin’s unwavering ceasefire stipulations at the cost of Ukraine and Western countries.

Iran’s transgressions under the JCPOA have opened up the possibility of a snapback, a remedy that withstands only till October 18. The procedure itself takes about a month, thus indicating that the ‘E3’ parties of the JCPOA (Britain, France, Germany) have begun the process with little scope for delay. While Russia and China cannot formally veto the proceedings, they can attempt to defer and draw out the process by leveraging their positions in the Security Council.

Particular worries crop up when Moscow takes over the council’s rotating presidency in October. Both Iran and Russia have initiated activities aimed at stalling and discrediting the re-imposition of sanctions. They deliberate on Iran’s JCPOA-empowered opportunity to increase enrichment after President Trump’s departure from the accord in 2018 and make counterfeit allegations concerning the E3 contravening the terms of the agreement. However, these discussions conveniently neglect Iran’s failure to disclose its undercover weapon development projects during the execution of the pact.

Moreover, Moscow seems to be encouraging Tehran to prolong the situation. The E3’s past record of not following through on their assurances to kick-start the snapback process could be exploited by Iran which may offer extended dialogues on rebooting nuclear talks. After conversations with the E3 in July and August, it is conceivable that Tehran would commit to an agreement at a third meeting in late September, but only if the snapback has been previously aborted.

It is here that the proactive participation of the U.S. becomes invaluable. While the Trump administration has only provided secondary support for the snapback till now, the surest way to actualize the procedure would be to motivate the E3 to wholly re-evaluate their outreach to Iran. Citing Iran regime’s consistent irresponsibility in addressing increasing global concerns about its nuclear program, America and Europe need to come together and declare that reinstating the sanctions effectively shuts down the current window for diplomacy.

Simultaneously, they should propose a trade-off wherein these embargoes would be lifted in a future deal, provided Iran is earnest about permanently and verifiably discontinuing its nuclear arms program. The history of Iran’s diplomatic deception could be strategically used to counter the misinformation attempts by Iran and Russia that intend to compromise the execution of the snapback sanctions.

However, further proactive measures would be required. Moscow’s expected veto of any UN Panel of Experts to ensure the enforcement of renewed sanctions, as witnessed last year with North Korea, needs to be countered pragmatically. By coordinating with Europe and other stakeholders, the United States could route through informal establishments like the Proliferation Security Initiative to ensure widespread adherence.

Should Iran and Russia choose to disregard international laws, other nations would be hesitant to align themselves with these rogue actions if a broad coalition, overseen by the U.S., ensures effective supervision and deters blatant UN violations. The creation of a more robust and unified front would also reduce the chances for Putin to take advantage of any frictions between the U.S. and Europe, particularly concerning Ukraine.

The road to re-activation of strenuous sanctions against Iran has been an arduous one, and it has only just begun. American diplomacy must take the driving seat and push the effort across the finish line to attain valuable strategic advantage against two of our prominent adversaries.