Here we go!
The United States submitted a letter to the 15-member U.N. Security Council alleging Iranian non-compliance, in theory starting a 30-day process that could lead to the "snapback" of U.N. sanctions even though major powers like Russia reject the U.S. stance and say they will not restore the penalties.
America is making good on its vow to seek such sanctions if the UN would not extend an arms embargo on Iran.
But Russia's rejection of our move seems to bolster my belief that there is no such thing as "snapback" sanctions--and they must be imposed by an affirmative vote of the UN Security Council, which can be blocked by a veto by a permanent member (coughrussiaandchinacough):
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?
This is going to be fascinating. I think Russia's Lavrov ran rings around John Kerry, who was responsible for negotiating the deal on
