Complexities of Examining Potential Violations of Resolution 2231

The recent cooperation between Iran and Russia in operations in Syria and the use of Russia's air force from the Hamadan base (Nojeh) has been at the forefront of news over the past two days. On one hand, this cooperation is deemed unprecedented as it marks the first time in about seventy years that a foreign country is utilizing Iran's military base facilities, and on the other hand, it has overshadowed the international implications and finding solutions regarding the Syrian crisis. One of the questions that arose from the early hours of the news release, particularly in Washington, was whether this cooperation violates UN Security Council Resolution 2231 or not. The US State Department states that it has not yet reached a conclusion, while the Russian Foreign Ministry claims its actions do not violate the resolution. This resolution, which was passed to endorse the nuclear agreement, includes a prohibition on the sale and transfer of arms to Iran, which remains in effect for five years after the adoption of the JCPOA. In this regard, Radio Farda interviewed Peter Wezeman, a senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Mr. Wezeman's research area focuses on arms production and trade, particularly in the Middle East. Regarding the scope of the new Iran-Russia cooperation in Syria, there may not be enough information available. However, based on what has been said so far, do you think this cooperation could violate the arms transfer prohibition to Iran under UN Security Council Resolution 2231? In my opinion, the fact that the Russian air force is sending fighter jets to Iran to be used for targeting positions in Syria does not clearly violate Resolution 2231. This resolution is very explicit about several issues. It enforces the prohibition of the sale and transfer of arms to Iran in such a way that no one can send conventional weapons, including fighter jets, to Iran unless they obtain the consent of all members of the UN Security Council. The US is one of the members of this council, and obtaining such a permit is highly unlikely. This is a five-year limitation. However, the wording regarding this prohibition is somewhat ambiguous. It states that this prohibition applies to weapons that are to be used by or for the benefit of Iran. This can be interpreted in various ways. You mean the part that talks about benefiting Iran? Yes. This part states that, for example, fighter jets should be used in Iran or for the benefit of Iran. In the recent case, this does not happen. Because these fighter jets fly to Iran and then go to Syria to be used there. Whether this is in line with Iran's interests, well yes! Ultimately, it benefits Iran that ISIS or other groups in Syria are targeted by these attacks, but this is not direct. Addressing how this Russian action of using a base in Iran violates the resolution requires a very complex legal case. Even if the US manages to present this interpretation, Russia will say, this is not my interpretation. And there is no independent body to make these interpretations. Russia, as a member of the Security Council, has the power to veto any action. And this issue, regardless of how the US thinks, has no solution, and Russia will continue its actions. Another issue that has been raised in the past couple of days is whether this cooperation for refueling the fighter jets or having a broader scope, such as leaving Russian equipment at the Hamadan base, could be considered a violation of the prohibition. How would an institution like the Security Council or a country like the US pursue this matter? If the Russians leave the base and leave equipment like spare parts for fighter jets in Iran, or give them to the Iranians, it would clearly be a violation of the resolution. Also, if a technician sent by Russia to Iran to service its fighter jets provides services to Iranian fighter jets as well, this would also be a violation of the resolution. And these actions occur in a country where, for example, the US does not have access to know exactly what is happening on the ground. Does the US trust Russia in this regard, or how is this issue pursued? Overall, enforcing arms prohibitions is difficult. There is no organization responsible for monitoring this issue. The UN has a special group regarding the prohibition of arms sales, which must even go to Iran to verify issues that may indicate a violation of the prohibition, and it may do so in this recent case. However, this working group has very limited resources. As a result, it will be very difficult for them to determine whether this is a violation of the prohibition or not. With all this, I must also emphasize that we know Iran has violated this prohibition, particularly regarding arms exports, and has done so by sending weapons to Iraq, which Iraq has accepted. It is somewhat strange that the US has not publicly protested in this regard and has not made a big deal out of it, and has even remained quite silent on this issue. Although it knows that Iran has sent a significant amount of weapons to Iraq. What is your assessment? Why has the US not protested? I think they have accepted that Iraq has a dire need for these shipments and do not want to punish them for this issue. What is happening is not a secret, and everyone knows about it, but the US does not think it is the right time to file a complaint about it.