Experts on weapons proliferation say that underneath the well-known weaknesses in the Iran nuclear deal lies another subset of issues that are slowly being uncovered, and which could make it even harder for members of Congress to support it.
Lawmakers, some Arab allies and Israel are already fuming over provisions in the deal like language that could cause a 24-day delay to inspect certain facilities in Iran, how many uranium centrifuges Iran gets to store and its ability to refurbish an underground nuclear bunker into a research center. Major complaints also include the thawing of Iranian assets in Western financial institutions valued up to $150 billion and even the length of the underlying agreement — 10 to 15 years for some key provisions.
Now that the deal is codified in a U.N. Security Council resolution, experts, reporters and opponents of the deal found seven additional issues (a number that could grow) that may rankle critics and could sway Congress as it mulls the agreement for the next two months:
The process for re-imposing sanctions
If Iran violates the agreement, U.N.-levied economic sanctions will go back into effect, but not quite as quickly as President Obama has said.
Any of the six nations that brokered the deal — China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia and the U.S. — can lodge a complaint that Iran is not keeping to the deal and push for the return of sanctions. First, however, the resolution encourages all parties to work it out among themselves before filing a formal complaint. Failing that — and there is no set timeframe in the resolution for how long dispute settlement talks should last — a 30-day clock starts ticking to automatically re-impose all previous sanctions, sort of.
“If, within 10 days of” a complaint being filed “no member of the Security Council has submitted such a draft resolution for a vote, then the president of the Security Council shall submit such a draft resolution [to keep the agreement in place] and put it to a vote within 30 days,” the resolution reads.
That guarantees that the Security Council will have to vote to continue sticking to the deal, said Sharon Squassoni, the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ proliferation prevention program director. However, every member has veto authority, so the complaining signatory could simply reject that move and sanctions would be re-imposed.
RELATED: Senators say documents missing from Iran deal
Although the resolution sets no timetable for settling disagreements outside of the Security Council, the deal itself does. It allows 15 days, with the possibility of an unspecified extension, before a “joint commission.” It then allows another 15 days, which also can be extended, at the foreign ministry level, a step that can happen concurrently or be skipped. Then the aggrieved nation could convene a three-person “advisory board,” which would have 15 days to issue a non-binding opinion.
The joint commission would then have five days to consider that opinion and then either resolve the issue or see the complaining nation take it to the Security Council. So in total, if the joint commission and ministry level steps are invoked, and not simultaneously, it could take up to 90 days to re-impose sanctions.
Squassoni also pointed out that sanctions are not retroactive.
The nuclear ‘sabotage’ language
Language in the agreement requires the West to help protect Iran’s nuclear program from “sabotage,” a provision that is being interpreted by some as a direct shot at Israel and the United States.
Signatories are required to cooperate “through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems,” the joint agreement reads.
A few years ago, the U.S. and Israel were suspected of orchestrating an intrusion into Iran’s nuclear facilities through the Stuxnet virus, which damaged Iran’s Natanz facility. The U.S. and Israel never admitted to being behind the attack, but many believe the two allies were behind it.
Lifting weapons embargoes
The “surprise” in this section is that if the International Atomic Energy Agency declares, “that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities” before the various weapons, arms and technology embargoes ranging five-eight years expire, Iran could purchase such equipment and technology sooner.
And in the meantime, the Security Council will consider Iranian requests for those goods or technologies sooner on a “case-by-base” basis.
Nothing requires the U.S. to lift its weapons embargoes, but the language does mean that willing countries, such as Russia or China, could sell Iran tanks, missile technology and other weapons as soon as the IAEA gives Iran the “all clear.”
“In practice, this does not obligate any country to sell arms to Iran, nor does it affect U.S. and European constraints on arms sales,” explained Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
RELATED: Kerry: Iranian Supreme Leader’s speech ‘very disturbing’
However, “Iran badly needs to modernize its aging air force, surface-to-air missile defenses, and many other elements of its weapons systems — as well as acquire the technology for a wide range of new sensors, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and other improvement in its war fighting capabilities,” and could make significant purchases to do so under the deal, Cordesman wrote on the center’s site Monday.
Easing sanctions on Iranian scientists
According to a Dow Jones report late Tuesday, the deal will ease sanctions on specific Iranian officials that played a role in Iran’s nuclear program.
That report said members of Congress are still studying the annexes in the deal that allow for the release of these officials. But some said it’s clear that many will be freed from sanctions, and said they are a new reason to oppose the deal.
“This would remove sanctions on those responsible for Iran’s nuclear weapons development at the same time restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program come off,” said Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, about the language, according to Dow Jones. “That’s a deadly combination.”
Missiles
Even with the current missile embargo, there is actually nothing stopping Iran from launching or testing missiles — with or without the agreement — which the Security Council resolution acknowledges.
“Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology,” the embargo is lifted or the IAEA verifies that Iran is in compliance, the resolution reads.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif boasted of the provision early this week, and called it a “redline” that Iran was not willing to give up in the talks.
Squassoni said the only legally binding deals regarding missiles were between the old Soviet Union and the United States, which is why the U.N. can only “call upon” Iran to refrain.
In 2010, the world body adopted a sanctions resolution “that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that states shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities.” But Tehran never abided by it and, like the other U.N.-imposed sanctions, it will automatically be lifted in eight years if Iran is in compliance with the underlying nuclear agreement.
Cargo inspections
The Security Council resolution also merely “calls upon” participants to concede to cargo inspections, and doesn’t force any country to impose them on shipments to and from Iran.
Signatories should help implement the agreement by “inspecting, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, in particular the law of the sea and relevant international civil aviation agreements, all cargo to and from Iran in their territory, including seaports and airports if” one of the countries believes the cargo is in violation of the agreement, the resolution reads.
It also only calls on all signatories to cooperate with inspections on the high seas.
State and local actions against Iran
Language in the deal forces the U.S. government to prevent states and municipalities from blocking efforts to ease sanctions against Iran, assuming Iran complies with the terms of the deal.
Specifically, the deal says the U.S. will “take appropriate steps, taking into account all available authorities” to prevent states and cities from thwarting sanctions relief if Iran is in compliance with the joint agreement.”
That section is likely an acknowledgement of the trouble the Obama administration has had implementing some policies, particularly in the areas of immigration and the environment, because of action at the state and local level.
“The United States will actively encourage officials at the state or local level to take into account the changes in the U.S. policy reflected in the lifting of sanctions … and to refrain from actions inconsistent with this change in policy,” the provision reads.
