Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Behold the Blinding Glory That is the Brilliance of Secretary Kerry!

Remember how the Obama administration touted their success in getting the world to unite in a diplomatic solution to stopping Iran from getting nuclear missiles? Remember how opponents of the deal suspected that Russia might not be fully on board that sainted international community bandwagon?

We want to get UN action in the Security Council in response to Iran's banned missile tests.

And is Russia--who our president inexplicably thanked for their help in getting to the signing ceremony--in agreement with this plan? Well:

"This merits a council response," U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told reporters. "Russia seems to be lawyering its way to look for reasons not to act ... We're not going to give up at the Security Council, no matter the quibbling that we heard today about this and that."

We've already seen Russia run interference for Tehran's nutballs.

But the actual nuclear agreement will be much better right? What with "snapback" sanctions?

First, the snapback provisions have so many ways around them that Iran will lock in place deals immune to any such response to their violations.

And second, if you think that Russia won't lawyer up on the provisions of the nuclear deal that essentially nullify the Security Council veto of the permanent Security Council members, you're either stoned or an Obama administration policy expert.

As I noted about the deal's provision amending the Security Council veto:

And let me add a question I've asked before. Can the United Nations charter be amended by this deal to carve out an exception to the veto power of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council?

Here's what the Chapter V, Article 27 of the UN charter says about the veto:

1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

Because I can see the Russians or Chinese objecting to the whole notion that UNSC resolutions can be reimposed after 30 days of inaction by the Security Council. What do we do when the Russians and Chinese (probably correctly, but it has been a long time since I had an international law class) argue that this deal provision is invalid and that no sanctions resolutions can go into effect without 9 votes, including the concurrence of the five permanent members, and they will not go along with it?
Yeah. Expect the Russians to lawyer up if we ever try to impose new sanctions on Iran under the Iran deal.

No doubt, at that point the deal's defenders in the West will say that enforcement isn't really important when you consider how the deal will bring in Iran from the cold and turn the Islamic Republic into a responsible regional power.

We are so screwed.