• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
    • Our Mission
      • Political Islam
    • Areas of Expertise
      • Economic Warfare
        • Cyber Security
      • U.S. Policy
      • Anti-Corruption
      • Foreign Election Observing
      • Supporting Free Speech
        • Legislation
      • Impact of ACD’s Work
      • Free Speech Celebration, U.S. Senate
    • Board of Directors & Advisors
    • Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
  • Our Impact
    • Endorsements
    • Additional Praise
  • Media
    • Recent Interviews
    • Events
      • Coming Events
    • Radio
    • Television
    • Rumble / Youtube
  • Publications
    • All Posts Archive
    • ACD Presentations
    • Articles
    • Books
    • Papers
    • Recommended Readings
  • Free Speech
    • Legislation & Support
    • Impact of ACD’s Work
      • FREE SPEECH Act Celebration, U.S. Senate, September 20, 2010
      • Some Congressional Testimonies
  • Economic warfare
    • The Impact of Purposeful Interference on U.S. Cyber Interests
    • Cyber/Space, EMP Insecurity- Current and Future Threats
    • The Existential EMP Threat
    • New Strategies to Secure U.S. Economy from Cyber Attacks
    • Economic Warfare Subversions July 9, 2012
    • CyberSpace Security – Papers And Articles
    • Cyber Security
    • Da’esh “lite” North America Islamist – Sources
    • The Muslim Brotherhood and Da’esh “Lite” in North America
  • Support ACD
    • Donate
    • Subscribe
    • Contact
American Center for Democracy

American Center for Democracy

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • youtube
  • linkedin
  • Free Speech
  • U.S. Policy
    • U.S. Foreign Policy
  • Political Islam
    • Canada
    • Hamas
    • Iran
    • Islam
    • Muslim Brotherhood
    • Palestinian
    • United States
  • Narco-Terrorism
  • Middle East Conflicts
    • Iran
    • Israel
  • Global Conflicts
    • China
    • North Korea
    • Russia
    • Ukraine
  • Soros
You are here: Home / Iran / The No Snapback Sanctions

The No Snapback Sanctions

June 26, 2015 by Rachel Ehrenfeld

The Obama administration’s apparent determination to sign an agreement that will not stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons has encouraged European businesses to jump-start trade talks with Tehran. Over the last two months chief executives of the Dutch Shell company, Total of France, Italy’s Eni and Lukoil of Russia have held meetings with the Iranian oil minister. Other agreements for trading with Iran have also been signed with other nations. Of course, all publicly claim that the agreements shall only come into effect upon the signing of the P5+1 agreement with Iran.  

However, considering that the U.S. has already relaxed several sanctions and Secretary of State John Kerry has stated the sanctions will be lifted even before verifying Iranian compliance with whatever postering Obama would request, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)  has introduced legislation to extend the soon-expiring sanctions on Iran for another 10 years.

On June 25, 2015, Sen. Menendez together with Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill) introduced the Iran Sanctions Relief Oversight Act of 2015 (S. 1682) to extend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172) for ten more years.  Sen. Kirk noted: “Congress passed the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to drain Iran’s financial support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and terrorist  threats to the United States and Israel, and to block funds for building nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. “Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper recently told Senators that ‘Iran remains the foremost state sponsor of terrorism,’ so if the White House is serious about maintaining terrorism sanctions against Iran no matter what, it must support our bipartisan effort to renew this expiring law.”

Sen. Menendez went on to explain, “Absent renewal we would be unilaterally lifting sanctions on Iran and hence unilaterally disarming. It stands to reason that if negotiators are serious about snapback, then they should support the immediate extension of the Iran Sanctions Act to ensure there is no question for Iran about the consequences of non-compliance,” he reasoned.

The current law regarding sanctions on Iran, as the one about to expire, also requires the administration to report to Congress “on whether any sanctions relief supported terrorism, human rights violation, or nuclear or missile proliferation, or went into the pockets of any senior Iranian official.” But according to the Government Accountability Office report on June 17, the State Department reports to Congress are “three years out of date“.  So, even if the law extension pass Congress and Obama does not veto it, there is little guarantee the Administration will abide by it. 

In “The Dead End of Snapback Sanctions: How the P5+1 Proposal Blocks Meaningful Re-imposition of Sanctions on Iran” (INSS, June 25, 2015*), Owen Alterman explains, “Faced with an Iranian breach of the agreement, the P5+1 face three challenges: adjudication, enforcement, and the lag time between sanctions re-imposition and impact. Of the three problems, the central one is the adjudication issue. While details of the agreement still await, at this stage, the mechanism the sides have chosen seems to favor Iran. If the parties truly wanted snapback sanctions, they would have chosen a set of tools that would actually implement them.”…

“Talks, though, do not seem to be moving in that direction. Instead, according to the Reuters and AP reports, representatives from each of the P5+1 states and Iran would themselves be the adjudicating panel. In other words, the parties themselves would be involved in the adjudication directly, not one step removed from what should be an independent panel of arbitrators. Moreover, if this P5+1-plus-Iran group would need to decide by consensus (as reported), then the system could truly be paralyzed. Reuters also reported that the decision by the panel would be non-binding, giving a legal basis for states to ignore the ruling completely. According to the AP, a final decision would come after a majority vote among the five permanent UN Security Council members. Still, that vote might – though this is unclear – only happen if the dispute resolution panel first finds, by consensus, that Iran is in breach, a finding that could well be blocked by a single holdout state among the P5+1.

“The second weakness of the process is in enforcement. Even were a hypothetical arbitration panel to find Iran in breach in a hypothetically binding ruling, key countries might not actually snap the sanctions back. To date, the Iran sanctions regime has held together remarkably well, with leading economies adhering to UN Security Council decisions. That pattern might not hold in the future. At a later date, holdout states – perhaps Russia, perhaps China, perhaps non-P5+1 states such as India – might prove less willing to implement the sanctions regime.

“The third weakness of the snapback sanctions mechanism is in the lag time before the sanctions economic have any impact. Economic sanctions do not bite from the day they are imposed. It takes time for businesses to step back from contracts, and then for the impact to seep into the economy and be translated into political pressure. As the Washington-based Iran Task Force has noted, much of the impact of sanctions is a psychological impact on business decisions, difficult to reinstate once the sanctions are lifted following the signing of the comprehensive agreement. These dynamics give Iran a built-in advantage; once sanctions are lifted, the default position is that they are not in place.

“Of the three problems, the central one is the adjudication issue which, if resolved, could enable at least the United States and European Union to re-impose a sanctions regime under cover of the agreement’s terms. The details of the agreement still await. At this stage, though, the mechanism the sides have chosen seems to favor Iran, with the Iranian government directly in the decision making chamber. Each of the P5+1 states would be individually part of the adjudication process – again, not represented by a single arbitrator one step removed from the parties’ official representatives. Depending on how the mechanism operates, this might enable Iran to seek out a single P5+1 state as a weak link to torpedo a sanctions snapback, and depending on the agreement’s terms, potentially without the issue reaching the majority vote of the five Security Council permanent members at all. In her testimony, Ambassador Power promised Congress that the US “will retain the ability to snap back multilateral sanctions architecture back in place, without Russian or Chinese support.” Time will tell whether the result is that straightforward.

“This choice of conflict resolution mechanism is telling. In the negotiations with Iran, the P5+1 states have deployed their all-star diplomats and lawyers, who surely know that they could choose an arbitration mechanism. Instead, they chose a political mechanism, which thereby keeps the decision in the hands of governments rather than outsources it to independent arbitrators.

“Some will argue that Iran would not have agreed to an arbitration process. Others will argue that the P5+1 states are to blame, in that at least some of them want to retain control over re-imposing sanctions. Either way, the decision to use a political and not a legal body to decide on sanctions is an early indication that sanctions will not snap back. If the parties truly wanted snapback sanctions, they would have chosen a set of tools that would actually implement them.

“This does not, in itself, mean that the emerging deal is a bad one. Other rewards could, in principle, outweigh this risk. It does mean, though, that those seeking to keep Iran to the deal will need leverage other than the sanctions. This leverage could include carrots or sticks. Israel should hope the leverage does not include carrots, since those carrots could well include global powers acquiescing to Iranian interests in the region. Instead, Israeli policymakers should start thinking about sticks. Beyond the military option, these sticks could include unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States or European governments in the event that the P5+1 decision making mechanism runs aground. Israel should think, even now, how such a mechanism could be created, and when and how to encourage it.

* The Dead End of Snapback Sanctions was originally published by INSS on June 25, 2015.

Filed Under: Iran, Obama, U.S. Foreign Policy, U.S. Policy

Primary Sidebar

Spotlight

website capture islamist incitement quote by j.woolsey obama signing Rachel's law chemical terrorism transportation terrorism nuclear threats on the rise winning the cyberwar gps concepts and misconceptions libel tourism

Search ACD

Recent Appearances

[5/1/2025] National Talk Radio with Shawn Moore

[3/11/2025] Shaun Thompson Interview

[3/10/2025] Larry Conners Interviews Rachel Ehrenfeld

[2/3/2025] The Truth About George Soros - Grey Matter Podcast

[1/22/2025] Fighting Terrorism Funding - SAM Podcast

[1/8/2025] COUNTER NARRATIVE Interview on PATRIOT.TV

[10/2/2024] The Shaun Thompson Show: Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld

[9/30/2024] Counter Narrative: Soros Power Grab: Media Takeover & Election Manipulation |

[8/28/2024] SOS Blinken warns U.S. allies that Iran may attack Israel in the next 24-48hrs

[8/9/2024] Purham & Associates Show Special Guest: Rachel Ehrenfeld

[7/26/2024] Dr. Ehrenfeld on The Andy Caldwell Show

[6/12/2024] Dr. Ehrenfeld on The Shaun Thompson Show

[5/29/2024] Interview on Bill Martinez Live

[5/24/2024] CAEF presents "Soros is No Dreyfus: The Soros Agenda to Change America & his Anti-Israel Crusade"

[5/16/2024] Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld on Jayne Carol Tonight - Portland, OR

[5/9/2024] How deep do the Soros ties go?

[5/6/2024] Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld: The College Intifada-How Jew Hunting Became a Left Wing Blood Sport On Campus

[4/15/2024] Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld on The Vic Poricini Show

[4/11/2024] The Andy Caldwell Show

[4/10/2024] Always Right Radio with Bob Frantz

[4/3/2024] Kacee Allen & Rachel Ehrenfeld - The Pelle Neroth Taylor Show

[3/12/2024] Rachel Ehrenfeld | Gunther Rewind - Podcast on iHeart Radio

[2/18/2024] תעלומת ג'ורג' סורוס ותרומתו למאבק נגד ישראל - פוקוס על אמריקה - Podcast on Spotify

תעלומת ג'ורג' סורוס ותרומתו למאבק נגד ישראל - פוקוס על אמריקה | Podcast on Spotify

[2/7/2024] Are We in World War III and Don't Know It? - Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson

[1/23/2024] The Chris Smith Show - TNTRADIO.LIVE

[1/22/2024] 'Soros Agenda' Author Warns That Global Elites Could Steal '24 Election - One America News

[1/12/2024] Stacy Washington NOW Rachel on from 24:10 – 31:46.

[12/23/2023] Propagaza – Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson

View ALL

The Soros Agenda

g. soros

Soros: The Man Who Would Be Kingmaker, Part I

Rachel Ehrenfeld & Shawn Macomber

Soros: The Man Who Would Be Kingmaker, Part II

Soros: The Man Who Would be Kingmaker, Part III

Soros: The Man Who Would be Kingmaker, Part IV

More about Soros...
ORDER THE SOROS AGENDA →
Buy The Soros Agenda

Tags

antisemitism Caliphate Canada capital punishment China Christians Daniel Haqiqatjou Dawah Disinformation genocide Hamas Iran ISIS Islam Islamic Party of Ontario Islamic Relief Canada Islamic Relief Worldwide Islamization Islamophobia Israel J. Millard Burr Jews jihad Justin Trudeau LGBT liberalism Muslim Brotherhood Muslims NCCM Norman Bailey Palestine Political Islam Quran Russia Salaheddin Islamic Centre Saudi Arabia Sharia Sol W. Sanders SOROS Syria Terrorism Toronto US USA women's rights

Footer

About ACD

ACD is a New York-based 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, which monitors and exposes the enemies of freedom and their modus operandi, and explores pragmatic ways to counteract their methods.

Endorsements

"The ACD/EWI ability to predict future threats is second to none"

- R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence

- - - More Endorsements - - -

Follow ACD!

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • youtube
  • linkedin

Copyright © 2025 | The American Center for Democracy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.