This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/world/middleeast/snapback-is-easy-way-to-reimpose-iran-penalties.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
‘Snapback’ Is Easy Way to Reimpose Iran Penalties ‘Snapback’ Is an Easy Way to Reimpose Iran Penalties
(about 2 hours later)
UNITED NATIONS — The world powers have promised to keep an eye on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and renew United Nations sanctions, if deemed necessary, for an additional five years after the initial 10-year agreement comes to a close.UNITED NATIONS — The world powers have promised to keep an eye on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and renew United Nations sanctions, if deemed necessary, for an additional five years after the initial 10-year agreement comes to a close.
Though not legally binding, that possible extension is part of a pact made by the foreign ministers of the six countries that completed the nuclear deal with Iran in Vienna this week and was conveyed in a three-paragraph letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations.Though not legally binding, that possible extension is part of a pact made by the foreign ministers of the six countries that completed the nuclear deal with Iran in Vienna this week and was conveyed in a three-paragraph letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations.
The agreement lifts economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for guarantees that its nuclear energy program remains peaceful. The deal is to be endorsed by a Security Council resolution that is expected to pass when it comes up for a vote early next week, perhaps on Monday. The resolution is to take effect 90 days later, a window of time long enough to let Congress consider the matter and for President Obama to veto a rejection, if necessary. The agreement lifts economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for guarantees that its nuclear energy program remains peaceful. It is to be endorsed by a Security Council resolution that is expected to pass when it comes up for a vote on Monday. The resolution is to take effect 90 days later, a window of time long enough to let Congress consider the matter and for President Obama to veto a rejection, if necessary.
The so-called snapback mechanism to renew United Nations sanctions is one of the most unusual parts of the deal. In the event that Iran is perceived as violating it, the agreement allows the full raft of penalties to resume automatically, without a vote on the Council that would risk a veto by one of its permanent members — namely, Russia, Iran’s closest ally on the Council.The so-called snapback mechanism to renew United Nations sanctions is one of the most unusual parts of the deal. In the event that Iran is perceived as violating it, the agreement allows the full raft of penalties to resume automatically, without a vote on the Council that would risk a veto by one of its permanent members — namely, Russia, Iran’s closest ally on the Council.
Instead, the snapback mechanism allows any of the six world powers that negotiated the deal to flag what it considers a violation. They would submit their concerns to a dispute resolution panel. If those concerns remained unresolved, the sanctions would automatically resume after 30 days, or “snap back.” According to the draft Security Council resolution, this means that the previous penalties “shall apply in the same manner as they applied before.”Instead, the snapback mechanism allows any of the six world powers that negotiated the deal to flag what it considers a violation. They would submit their concerns to a dispute resolution panel. If those concerns remained unresolved, the sanctions would automatically resume after 30 days, or “snap back.” According to the draft Security Council resolution, this means that the previous penalties “shall apply in the same manner as they applied before.”
Preventing a resumption of sanctions would require a vote by the Security Council. That in turn can be vetoed by those who would want the sanctions resumed, presumably the United States and its Western allies on the Council, Britain and France. Preventing a resumption of sanctions would require a vote by the Security Council. That in turn can be vetoed by those who would want the sanctions resumed, presumably the United States and its Western allies.
The snapback provision allows the United States, as one of Iran’s toughest critics on the Council, to use the veto power to its advantage. The snapback provision allows the United States, as one of Iran’s toughest critics on the Council, to use the veto power to its advantage. “It’s reversing the power of the veto,” one Council diplomat said. “The ones that will likely veto are the ones likely to push for the snapback.”
“It’s reversing the power of the veto,” one Council diplomat said. “The ones that will likely veto are the ones likely to push for the snapback.”
The snapback provision, Obama administration officials have said, would last for 10 years. In fact, as the July 14 letter to the secretary general shows, the threat of sanctions could continue for another five years.The snapback provision, Obama administration officials have said, would last for 10 years. In fact, as the July 14 letter to the secretary general shows, the threat of sanctions could continue for another five years.
The letter, signed in Vienna by foreign ministers of the six countries that struck the deal — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, plus the European Union — says that they plan to introduce another Security Council resolution once the first one lapses in 10 years. That resolution, they say, would allow “the reinstatement of measures in the event of Iran’s significant nonperformance,” for what they call “five additional years.” The letter, signed in Vienna by foreign ministers of the six countries that struck the deal — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, plus the European Union — says that they plan to introduce another Security Council resolution once the first one lapses in 10 years. That resolution, they say, would allow “the reinstatement of measures in the event of Iran’s significant nonperformance,” for what they call “five additional years.” The existence of the letter was first reported by Agence France-Presse early Thursday.
The existence of the letter was first reported by Agence France-Presse early Thursday.
The signal to extend the snapback provision is not legally binding, nor enforceable by law. To extend the mechanism to reinstate sanctions would require another vote of the Council, as they make clear. At that point, any of the permanent members could veto it. It is, however, a not-so-subtle threat that the scrutiny of Iran’s nuclear ambitions could last longer than the Iranians had bargained for.The signal to extend the snapback provision is not legally binding, nor enforceable by law. To extend the mechanism to reinstate sanctions would require another vote of the Council, as they make clear. At that point, any of the permanent members could veto it. It is, however, a not-so-subtle threat that the scrutiny of Iran’s nuclear ambitions could last longer than the Iranians had bargained for.
The snapback provision reflects what analysts with the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based research organization, called “deep distrust” among the parties to the nuclear deal.The snapback provision reflects what analysts with the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based research organization, called “deep distrust” among the parties to the nuclear deal.
“The intent of this clause is to deter Iranian defection from its obligations, by entrenching the costs of doing so,” the analysts wrote in a report.