Facing growing skepticism over his looming deal with Iran, President Obama is pushing the notion of a “snapback” sanctions process he says would effectively address any failure by Iran to comply with its commitments under the agreement. That is, any lifted sanctions would be subject to swift re-imposition should Iran breach the agreement.
But like many things that have come out of the Obama administration, this has the feel of an effort to mislead and even to deceive – an exercise in rhetoric designed to placate those who fear the U.S. intends to accommodate Iran’s insistence that there be no unrestricted inspections and that sanctions be lifted even before the ink is dry on the agreement.
On the face of it, the very word “snapback” brings to mind all the right things. It suggests we will somehow instantly know of alleged non-compliance, and that retribution would be automatic. The reality, though, is there has to be a comprehensive inspection regime in place and a process by which to consider and decide on the allegations – and only then, after due deliberation, will there be the possibility of renewing the sanctions.
But it’s difficult to imagine events even getting to that point, because once sanctions are lifted, trade with Iran will quickly proliferate and few nations would want it curtailed, even in the face of Iranian non-compliance with the nuclear agreement.
And any action to re-impose international sanctions would necessarily require action in the UN Security Council where Russia and China, never too enthusiastic about sanctions in the first place or automatic measures in general, would have to give their assent. So administration officials fudge the issue by stating their aim is to make any nuclear deal immune to Russian or Chinese veto.
Thus in a recent interview, UN Ambassador Samantha Power said Washington did not want a repeat of Russian and Chinese vetoes on resolutions related to Syria: “We’re going to do so in a manner that that doesn’t require Russian and Chinese support for a vote for snapback…because we are in a different world in 2015 than we were when the sanctions architecture was put in place.”
Tellingly, she offered no details.