MOSCOW (Pakistan Point News / Sputnik - 27th August, 2020) The fact that the US attempts to snapback sanctions against Iran have failed because the UN Security Council (UNSC) did not support its request indicates that Washington is isolated on this issue at the international level, but the Trump administration will unlikely abandon its pressure policy opting for other tools instead, experts told Sputnik.
On Tuesday, UNSC President Dian Triansyah Djani said that he was not in a position to take further action on the attempt by the United States to re-impose all UN sanctions on Iran, as there was no consensus in the council. Russia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vassily Nebenzia noted that almost all UNSC members said the US move could not be considered as initiating the snapback mechanism because Washington had withdrawn from the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Dr. Guy Burton, an adjunct Professor of International Relations at the Vesalius College in Brussels, told Sputnik that the level of international support for the United States on the issue of re-imposing sanctions against Tehran was even worse than in 2003, when Washington decided to invade Iraq.
"Yes, it has not been a good couple of weeks for the US at the UN over the Iran deal. It could only get one vote in support and the Security Council's refusal to consider the snapback highlights just how isolated the US is on this issue � even more than when the US decided to invade Iraq in 2003. Then, it had at least one or two major supporters, including Britain, as well as other smaller countries willing to back it," Burton stated.
The expert went on to say that despite such isolation, Washington would unlikely to abandon its pressure efforts and might consider other tools to pressure states to take its side in the situation with Iran.
"However, I cannot see the US backing down, not after investing so much time and effort into their maximum pressure strategy. If they want to continue at the international level, they may try and use bilateral relations to pressure countries to come over to its side (although the fact that the E3 were so firm in their statement last week was striking) or they may try and adopt a more unilateral approach, bypassing legislation at home, which go above and beyond the sanctions they have already imposed," he stated, adding that the failure to snap back sanctions was not a "complete disaster" for the US.
Burton stressed that the most of other UNSC members did not vote against the US resolution, but abstained, which shows that "there is still residual influence" by the United States that it could use.
"Plus there were those comments about European unease regarding Iran: they are certainly not all three definitively in Iran's corner and could potentially be peeled off by US strong-arming or persuasion (like pressure on Britain over post-Brexit transition free trade agreement, revisiting the previous US announcement to withdraw troops from Germany)," Burton said.
The expert outlined that the actions of both countries in this context were also motivated by the approaching presidential election in the United States.
"I link what is happening right now to a fight between two opponents with different objectives: Iran wants to stretch this out for as long as possible, beyond the November election. If Trump loses, the prospect of the US coming back to the table may be possible. By contrast, the US � knowing the limited time available left to the administration � want to go for a knock out blow before November," he concluded.
Meanwhile, Henry Platt Bristol Professor of International Affairs at the Hamilton College Alan Cafruny also stressed that the US had been abandoned by other countries in its striving to snapback sanctions against Tehran.
"The almost unanimous UNSC rejection of the US attempt to 'snapback' sanctions does represent a significant setback, indicating just how isolated the United States has become," Cafruny said.
The expert continued, saying that Washington would not renounce the pressure policy, as destroying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was the key project of Trump's presidency.
"Trump will not abandon this course of action. The attempt to destroy the JCPOA has been a core project of his presidency and, if anything, the pressure will increase in the context of the presidential elections," he said, at the same time noting that the United States "cannot win the legal argument," as was the first to withdraw from the deal.
According to Cafruny, remaining signatories of the JCPOA would likely try to mitigate US' pressure on Iran in hope that Joe Biden will win the race and confirm his commitment to the deal.
"Tehran's reaction will depend in large part on the reaction of the EU, which will seek to avoid sanctions for as long as possible. Iran's decision to maintain broad compliance with the JCPOA, as evidenced by its recent decision to grant access to IAEA [the International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors, may facilitate this process," Cafruny said.
The JCPOA, signed in 2015 by Iran, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, stipulates the removal of international sanctions from Tehran in exchange for it scaling down its nuclear program. The deal was then enshrined in UNSC Resolution 2231, including a provision on a five-year arms embargo.
The United States unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear agreement in May of 2018.
