Nuclear Agreement and Circumventing Opponents with Resolution Approval in the Security Council

Nuclear negotiations have reached a critical stage. Negotiators have less than a month to agree on the framework of a comprehensive agreement. In terms of the technical aspects of Iran's nuclear program and the imposition of restrictions on it, the path seems smoother, while the bigger challenge that we hear more about in recent weeks is the approach of Iran and the 1+5 group regarding sanctions and the timeline for their removal. Mehrdad Emadi, an economic expert residing in Britain, explains the contentious nature of the sanctions issue: "The part of the sanctions that is of greater sensitivity for the US and the EU is that if the restrictions are lifted, regaining control over Iran's access to advanced technologies that would be highly beneficial for such projects will be very difficult. This could turn Iran into a regional superpower, which these countries are currently not accepting." However, Mr. Emadi describes Iran's concern as follows: "From Iran's perspective, the sensitivity is that if this agreement is not reached suddenly, the experience we have from Iraq, and the experience we have from other sanctioned countries, is that sanctions have become a political tool to paralyze that country, and that when they say sanctions will be lifted gradually, Iran says it is unclear whether six months later they will raise the ceiling of expectations for lifting sanctions. The concern is the same as the Persian expression of loosening and tightening." The aim of the discussions between Iran and the six global powers is twofold. It has been repeatedly stated that a win-win agreement should be reached through these discussions, ensuring the international community is assured of the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program, while Iran becomes a country equipped with nuclear energy as international sanctions are lifted following this verification. However, since the two parties began negotiations to reach a comprehensive agreement, the question of what guarantees will exist for the implementation of a potential comprehensive agreement has also been raised frequently. This question was discussed by the weekly magazine "Seda" with Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Foreign Minister, who considered the solution to be a "Chapter Seven resolution of the UN Charter," which states that "the agreement will be confirmed through this." Observers in this field consider this solution to be a rational and innovative approach. Among them is Saeed Mahmoudi, an international law professor in Stockholm, who speaks about the benefits of using this mechanism: "According to Article 103 of the UN Charter, all Security Council resolutions, especially with an emphasis on Chapter Seven, are legally binding for all UN members. Such resolutions legally supersede all domestic laws of countries and other international agreements that countries may have in the same area. That is, if there is a conflict between this resolution and the domestic laws of countries or other international agreements they have, the provisions of the resolution will be enforceable." The significance of such a precedent, regardless of the details that Mohammad Javad Zarif has not disclosed, increases when we focus on the state of domestic politics in both Iran and the US. In the latest form of expressing criticism of the current negotiation process, 47 Republican senators have written an open letter to Iranian leaders warning that any nuclear agreement with the US government, without the approval of Congress, will not last beyond Obama's presidency. These senators are institutional lawmakers who have imposed multiple sanctions alongside unilateral sanctions by the US President, UN Security Council sanctions, and EU sanctions on Iran. However, Mehrdad Emadi states that some of the congressional sanctions do not necessarily need to be lifted by this institution critical of the negotiations. He says, "Those sanctions imposed by Congress based on trade relations or investments by third countries or companies from third countries in Iran's industries and energy sector have limited validity. If we assume, for example, that the UN invalidates Resolution 1929 in four months and states it will no longer continue, all congressional decisions related to third countries and companies will become ineffective. Even if Congress insists that the validity of sanctions within the US continues for American companies, these companies can go to US federal courts and request to overturn Congress's decision." For this reason, the potential use of a new resolution to make the agreement binding is assessed as significant by observers. This is because not only does this resolution, by confirming the potential comprehensive agreement, turn it into an international agreement, but analysts say such a resolution will be an effective tool for circumventing critics of the agreement in capitals like Tehran and Washington.