Us Attempts To Reinstate Sanctions On Iran Via Jcpoa Snapback Mechanism

In 2015, Iran and the P5+1 nations (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany) signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was endorsed by the UN Security Council. The JCPOA aimed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons while allowing it to have a civilian nuclear power program under international monitoring. In 2018, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA. Recently, the United States initiated a controversial procedure called "snapback" at the United Nations Security Council, later withdrawing it, in an attempt to unilaterally reimpose sanctions on Iran. The JCPOA allows any party to trigger a process that reinstates UN sanctions on Iran if Iran is not complying with the deal. These sanctions include an embargo on Iran selling or buying specific weapons, a ban on Iran's activities related to nuclear enrichment and reprocessing and any external support for these activities, and sanctions on certain Iranian officials and entities.

The JCPOA Snapback Attempt: A Crisis in Multilateralism

The year 2019 witnessed a significant event in international relations, particularly concerning the Iranian nuclear program and the future of multilateral diplomacy: the United States' attempt to unilaterally reimpose sanctions on Iran through the "snapback" mechanism of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), despite having withdrawn from the agreement in 2018. This move, initiated at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), sparked widespread controversy and highlighted the growing tensions between the US and other world powers regarding Iran and the JCPOA.

The Genesis of the JCPOA: A Diplomatic Triumph

To understand the significance of the 2019 snapback attempt, it's crucial to delve into the history and context of the JCPOA itself. The Iranian nuclear program has been a subject of international concern for decades. Concerns about its potential military dimensions led to the imposition of sanctions by the United Nations, the United States, and the European Union. These sanctions severely impacted the Iranian economy, limiting its access to international markets and financial systems.

Recognizing the need for a diplomatic solution, negotiations began between Iran and the P5+1 nations (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany), with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy acting as coordinator. These negotiations, which spanned several years, aimed to reach a comprehensive agreement that would ensure the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program.

On July 14, 2015, after intense negotiations, the JCPOA was finalized in Vienna. This landmark agreement represented a significant diplomatic achievement, offering a pathway to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue peacefully. Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to significantly limit its nuclear program, including reducing the number of centrifuges, limiting uranium enrichment levels, and converting the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant into a nuclear, physics, and technology center. It also agreed to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with enhanced access to its nuclear facilities for monitoring and verification purposes.

In return, the JCPOA provided for the gradual lifting of nuclear-related sanctions imposed by the UN, the US, and the EU. This sanctions relief was intended to provide Iran with economic benefits, allowing it to reintegrate into the global economy. The JCPOA was formally endorsed by the UN Security Council through Resolution 2231 (2015), solidifying its international legitimacy.

The US Withdrawal and the "Maximum Pressure" Campaign

The JCPOA was hailed as a major success of multilateral diplomacy. However, its future became uncertain with the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016. During his campaign, Trump had repeatedly criticized the JCPOA, calling it the "worst deal ever negotiated." He argued that the agreement did not adequately address Iran's ballistic missile program, its regional activities, and the sunset clauses that would eventually lift restrictions on Iran's nuclear program.

In May 2018, President Trump announced the United States' withdrawal from the JCPOA, citing Iran's alleged violations of the agreement and its continued destabilizing behavior in the region. This decision was met with strong opposition from other JCPOA signatories, who argued that Iran was complying with the terms of the agreement and that the US withdrawal would undermine international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Following its withdrawal from the JCPOA, the United States reimposed sanctions on Iran, including sanctions that had been lifted under the agreement. The Trump administration also launched a "maximum pressure" campaign aimed at crippling the Iranian economy and forcing Iran to negotiate a new, more comprehensive agreement. These sanctions targeted Iran's oil exports, its financial sector, and its access to international markets.

The US "maximum pressure" campaign had a significant impact on the Iranian economy, leading to a sharp decline in oil exports, a currency devaluation, and rising inflation. It also exacerbated existing tensions between the US and Iran, increasing the risk of military conflict in the region.

The "Snapback" Mechanism: A Controversial Tool

The JCPOA included a provision known as the "snapback" mechanism, which was designed to ensure Iran's compliance with the agreement. Under this mechanism, any party to the JCPOA could trigger the reinstatement of UN sanctions on Iran if it believed that Iran was not complying with its obligations. The snapback process involved a series of steps and votes within the UN Security Council. If the UNSC failed to extend sanctions relief, the sanctions would automatically snap back into place within 30 days.

The snapback mechanism was intended as a safeguard to ensure Iran's compliance with the JCPOA. However, its potential use by the US after withdrawing from the agreement became a source of intense controversy.

The US Attempt to Trigger the Snapback

In 2019, the United States, despite having withdrawn from the JCPOA, initiated a process at the UN Security Council to trigger the snapback mechanism and reimpose UN sanctions on Iran. The US argued that Iran was in non-compliance with the JCPOA due to its reduced adherence to the agreement's restrictions on uranium enrichment. Iran had begun to reduce its compliance with the JCPOA in response to the US sanctions, arguing that it was no longer receiving the economic benefits promised under the agreement.

The US attempt to trigger the snapback was met with strong opposition from other JCPOA signatories, including China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Germany. These countries argued that the US, having withdrawn from the JCPOA, no longer had the right to invoke the snapback mechanism. They maintained that Iran was still broadly complying with the agreement and that the US attempt to reimpose sanctions was counterproductive and would further destabilize the region.

The legal basis for the US attempt to trigger the snapback was highly contested. Other JCPOA parties argued that the US, by withdrawing from the agreement, had forfeited its rights under the agreement, including the right to invoke the snapback mechanism. The US, however, argued that it retained the right to invoke the snapback as an original party to the JCPOA and as a member of the UN Security Council.

The US attempt to trigger the snapback ultimately failed to garner sufficient support within the UN Security Council. The majority of UNSC members opposed the US move, arguing that it was legally flawed and would undermine the JCPOA. The US, facing widespread opposition, eventually withdrew its attempt to trigger the snapback.

Stakeholder Positions and Underlying Interests

The JCPOA snapback attempt highlighted the divergent interests and perspectives of the key stakeholders involved in the Iranian nuclear issue.

• United States: The US, under the Trump administration, adopted a policy of "maximum pressure" on Iran, aimed at curbing its nuclear ambitions and its regional activities. The US believed that the JCPOA was a flawed agreement and that sanctions were necessary to force Iran to negotiate a new, more comprehensive deal. The US sought to limit Iran's influence in the Middle East and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

• Iran: Iran maintained that it was complying with the JCPOA and had the right to a peaceful nuclear program. It argued that the US withdrawal and reimposition of sanctions were a violation of international law. Iran sought to maintain its nuclear program for peaceful purposes and to alleviate the economic pressure from sanctions. Initially, Iran adhered to the JCPOA, but later reduced its compliance in response to US sanctions, a move it justified as a response to the failure of other parties to compensate for the economic losses caused by the US measures.

  Advertisement

• China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, Germany: These countries viewed the JCPOA as the best way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and sought to preserve the agreement. They opposed the US withdrawal and attempt to trigger the snapback, arguing that these actions were undermining the JCPOA and increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation. They aimed to maintain regional stability and prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. These countries attempted to mediate between the US and Iran and sought ways to maintain trade with Iran despite US sanctions.

Broader Implications of the Snapback Attempt

The US attempt to trigger the JCPOA snapback had significant implications for international relations, nuclear non-proliferation, and the role of international agreements.

• Political Implications: The US action further isolated the US and strained its relations with other JCPOA signatories. It raised questions about the credibility of the US as a reliable partner in international agreements. The failure of the US to gain international support for its snapback attempt demonstrated the limits of its unilateral power.

• Diplomatic Implications: The US action undermined the JCPOA and complicated efforts to address the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy. It created a climate of distrust and made it more difficult to find a negotiated solution. The US approach contrasted sharply with the multilateral diplomacy that had led to the JCPOA in the first place.

• Legal Implications: The legality of the US attempt to trigger the snapback was disputed, as the US had withdrawn from the JCPOA. This raised questions about the interpretation of international agreements and the rights and obligations of parties that withdraw from such agreements.

• Security Implications: The collapse of the JCPOA could increase the risk of Iran developing nuclear weapons, leading to regional instability and a potential arms race. It could also lead to increased military tensions between the US and Iran. The uncertainty surrounding the JCPOA created a more volatile security environment in the Middle East.

  Advertisement

• Humanitarian Implications: Sanctions on Iran have had negative humanitarian consequences, affecting access to food, medicine, and other essential goods. The reimposition of sanctions has exacerbated these humanitarian challenges.

• Economic Implications: The reimposition of sanctions on Iran has severely impacted its economy, leading to inflation, unemployment, and reduced living standards. It has also limited Iran's ability to participate in the global economy.

Historical Precedents and Lessons Learned

The US attempt to use the snapback mechanism, despite withdrawing from the JCPOA, is not entirely without precedent in international relations. The US has a history of employing unilateral sanctions to achieve its foreign policy goals, even when facing international opposition.

One notable example is the US trade embargo against Cuba, which has been in place for decades. Despite widespread international criticism, the US has maintained the embargo, arguing that it is necessary to promote democracy and human rights in Cuba.

The US sanctions on Cuba and its attempt to use the JCPOA snapback mechanism illustrate the US's willingness to act unilaterally, even when its actions are not supported by the international community. This approach can be effective in achieving short-term goals, but it can also damage US credibility and undermine international cooperation.

The Role of the United Nations Security Council

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) plays a crucial role in maintaining international peace and security. It has the power to impose sanctions, authorize military action, and pass resolutions that are binding on all UN member states. The UNSC endorsed the JCPOA through Resolution 2231, providing a legal basis for its implementation.

However, the UNSC's effectiveness is limited by the veto power of its five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US). Any of these countries can block a resolution, even if it has the support of the majority of UNSC members.

The US attempt to trigger the JCPOA snapback highlighted the limitations of the UNSC. Despite the US's efforts, it was unable to secure the support of the majority of UNSC members, due to opposition from other permanent members such as China and Russia.

The Future of the JCPOA and Indian Foreign Policy

The future of the JCPOA remains uncertain. The US and Iran may eventually return to negotiations, but significant obstacles remain. The situation could escalate if Iran further reduces its compliance with the JCPOA or if there is a military confrontation.

India, as a major energy consumer and a country with close ties to both the US and Iran, has a significant stake in the outcome of the JCPOA. India has traditionally maintained a balanced approach to its relations with the US and Iran, seeking to protect its economic and strategic interests.

The JCPOA provided India with an opportunity to expand its economic engagement with Iran, particularly in the energy sector. However, the US sanctions have made it difficult for India to continue its trade with Iran.

India has called for a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue and has supported the JCPOA. It has also expressed concern about the impact of sanctions on the Iranian economy and the humanitarian situation in Iran.

In the future, India will likely continue to pursue a balanced approach to its relations with the US and Iran, seeking to protect its interests while promoting regional stability. India may also play a role in facilitating dialogue between the US and Iran.

The Broader Context: India's Energy Security and Regional Stability

India's approach to the JCPOA and the situation in Iran is deeply intertwined with its energy security concerns and its desire for regional stability. As a rapidly growing economy, India has a significant and increasing demand for energy. Iran has historically been a major supplier of oil to India, and access to Iranian oil is crucial for India's energy security.

However, US sanctions on Iran have made it difficult for India to import Iranian oil. India has been forced to diversify its energy sources and reduce its dependence on Iranian oil. This has had economic consequences for India, as alternative sources of oil may be more expensive or less reliable.

In addition to energy security, India is also concerned about regional stability in the Middle East. Instability in the region can have a negative impact on India's economy and its security interests. India has a large diaspora in the Middle East, and any conflict in the region could put these Indian citizens at risk.

India has therefore consistently called for a peaceful resolution to the conflicts in the Middle East and has supported diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions. India believes that a stable and prosperous Middle East is in its best interests.

The Importance of Multilateralism

The JCPOA and the US attempt to trigger the snapback highlight the importance of multilateralism in addressing complex international challenges. Multilateralism involves cooperation among multiple countries to achieve common goals. It is based on the principle that collective action is more effective than unilateral action.

The JCPOA was a product of multilateral diplomacy, involving negotiations among Iran and the P5+1 nations. It demonstrated that even seemingly intractable problems can be resolved through dialogue and compromise.

However, the US withdrawal from the JCPOA and its attempt to trigger the snapback demonstrated the challenges to multilateralism. Unilateral actions by powerful countries can undermine international agreements and make it more difficult to achieve common goals.

In an increasingly interconnected world, multilateralism is essential for addressing a wide range of challenges, including climate change, terrorism, and pandemics. It is important for countries to work together to find solutions to these challenges.

The Role of International Law

The JCPOA snapback attempt also raised important questions about international law. The legality of the US attempt to trigger the snapback was disputed, as the US had withdrawn from the JCPOA. This raised questions about the interpretation of international agreements and the rights and obligations of parties that withdraw from such agreements.

International law provides a framework for regulating relations among states. It is based on the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. However, international law is often difficult to enforce, as there is no global police force.

The effectiveness of international law depends on the willingness of states to comply with its rules. When powerful countries disregard international law, it can undermine the international legal system.

It is important for all countries to respect international law and to work together to strengthen the international legal system. This is essential for maintaining a stable and peaceful international order.

Connecting to Broader Issues in Indian Foreign Relations

The JCPOA saga and India's response to it connect to several broader issues in Indian foreign relations:

• Strategic Autonomy: India has long pursued a policy of strategic autonomy, which means making independent decisions based on its own national interests, without being unduly influenced by other countries. India's approach to the JCPOA, balancing its relations with the US and Iran, reflects this commitment to strategic autonomy.

  Advertisement

• Non-Alignment 2.0: Some analysts have argued that India should adopt a "Non-Alignment 2.0" approach, which would involve forging strategic partnerships with like-minded countries to promote its interests in a multipolar world. India's engagement with the other JCPOA signatories, who opposed the US snapback attempt, could be seen as an example of this approach.

• Balancing Great Power Relations: India is increasingly navigating a complex geopolitical landscape, with rising tensions between the US and China, and between the US and Russia. India's ability to maintain good relations with all major powers is crucial for its own security and prosperity.

• Energy Security: As discussed earlier, energy security is a major concern for India. India's efforts to diversify its energy sources and reduce its dependence on any single country reflect this concern.

• Regional Connectivity: India is investing in regional connectivity projects, such as the Chabahar Port in Iran, to promote trade and economic integration in the region. These projects are also strategically important for India, as they provide access to Central Asia and Afghanistan, bypassing Pakistan.

Looking Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

The Iranian nuclear issue and the future of the JCPOA remain a significant challenge for international relations. The US and Iran remain deeply divided, and the risk of escalation remains high.

However, there are also opportunities for progress. A return to diplomacy and a revival of the JCPOA could help to de-escalate tensions and prevent nuclear proliferation.

India has a role to play in promoting a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue. As a responsible and influential actor in the international arena, India can contribute to dialogue and compromise.

The JCPOA snapback attempt serves as a reminder of the importance of multilateralism, international law, and strategic autonomy. These principles will continue to guide India's foreign policy in the years to come.