The administration of U.S. President Donald trump entered the presidential election year with the absence of any significant diplomatic achievements. The standoff with China continues, “the deal of the century” on Palestine obviously failed, nuclear disarmament, the DPRK looks so unrealistic, like four years ago. But especially the shortcomings of the American approach based on “maximum pressure” and the unwillingness for any compromise, manifested in the Iranian story.In may 2018 Washington withdrew from a Joint comprehensive plan of action (SVPD), which limited Iranian nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. The new US administration was unhappy that the limitation was not indefinite, and that AGREEMENT has not handled the missile program of Iran and its regional behavior. Donald trump and his entourage expected that strangles American sanctions forced Tehran to agree to new terms. There is reason to believe that the part of the administration also expected that external pressure may lead to a change of government in Iran.Two years later, we can say that the leaders of the US were good tacticians and lousy strategists. The American sanctions have caused the Iranian economy to the unprecedented damage, but neither this nor the heavy epidemic of coronavirus not forced Iran to capitulate. On the contrary, Iran has refused almost all restrictions within SPUD, increased its nuclear programme, and regional clashes began to take American lives and nearly led to the Iran-American war. In April, the Tehran successfully launched its first military satellite.Against this background, clear sharp reaction of the American administration that in October, a month before the US presidential election, will expire restrictions of the UN arms supplies to Iran. Team Donald trump can’t afford another success of Tehran at the peak of the election campaign. Washington demanded the extension of the embargo on arms sales to Iran, but such a resolution of the UN Security Council certainly safetynut Russia and China. Then, the media got the information about the U.S. plan B is to destroy the agreement from the inside.Theoretically such a possibility the United States had from the beginning: the UN security Council resolution 2231, legally formalize AGREEMENT and to cancel all previous sanctions resolutions against Tehran, contained a self-destruct mechanism. In case of detection of violations of any country chastize agreement could start the process, then resolution 2231 was cancelled and it come into force five previous sanctions resolutions that included among other things, freezing of accounts, banking restrictions, a ban on the supply of offensive weapons in the country and the inspection of Irafurther vessels.As far as is known, the US administration considered this option also in 2018, but chose not to use it. Whether due to the fact that even the then national security adviser John Bolton was clear that the arguments about Iran’s violation look weak, either because the administration trump considered that the strength of the us sanctions would be enough. Washington has officially stated that out of the agreement and acted in accordance with this the last two years.The mechanism of termination of the resolution 2231 was unique and experimental solution. Without going into legal details, a tool was developed to bypass the veto of the permanent members of the Security Council in the framework of one single resolution. In the case of its use by the United States, the other permanent members of the UN security Council can’t block the American decision, despite the obvious abuse.This does not mean that the members of the Security Council won’t have any legal tools. But any of the options available will be unprecedented and will create a new conflict. One of the members of the Security Council will have to challenge the rights of others within the framework of the resolution. If the great powers would begin to challenge the foundations of international law, it will affect whole system of international relations.There is some hope that Washington will refrain from such a step. The chances of this are higher if all members of SVPD will make a joint statement that the United States fully withdrew from the agreement and U.S. actions in the framework of resolution 2231 will not have legal force. But in the current geopolitical situation it is difficult to even count on it. In this situation it would be possible to start with a simple confirmation of previous statements of the participants AGREEMENT that they regret the withdrawal of Washington from the agreement.What are the legal arguments and strategies of the parties to the agreement and the outcome of the situation is difficult to say. But we can assume that even the possibility of such developments will bury the very concept of the use of similar tools in the future. Operation of the international coalition against Libya has actually made it impossible to continue the no-fly zone under UN auspices. American abuse of resolution 2231 would mean the rejection of other creative decisions in the UN security Council, which will only reinforce the tendency to paralysis of this organ.
