THREAD. Reading E3 letter to the Security Council (which by the way shreds any credibility for those countries to ever opine on the virtues of international law again) it becomes clear that they (plus Russia and China) would have said a US snapback in May 2018 was invalid, too.
Obama, Biden, Kerry, Sherman, Lew & others vowed the US could snapback even if all other countries opposed it. Were they lying? Was that the understanding? Are these official lying today when they say we could have in 2018 but we can't now? Was this supposed to be a jump ball?
The answer is: you are supposed to read the language of a binding Security Council Resolution and defer to the complaint of a named party if at any time that party wants to snapback. UNSCR 2231 makes clear US can go directly to the Council to snapback, bypassing the JCPOA JC.
The Biden camp says: you shouldn't have left the deal, you could have snapped back in May 2018 before you left. But if the E3/Russia/China opposed a snapback then, what would have stopped them from re-interpreting and disputing other parts of UNSCR 2231? I have an example.
Evidence of "significant non-performance of JCPOA commitments" is required for a valid snapback complaint under UNSCR 2231. It is not defined - subjective term, left up to the complainant. So by today's logic, the rest of the Council could still have ignored the complaint?
The US might've alleged Iran hiding its secret nuclear weapons archive discovered in early 2018 was a breach of its JCPOA commitments (oh and the NPT). E3/Russia/China send a letter saying NO - this is not a valid "significant non-performance of commitments" - you can't snapback.
And we'd be exactly where we are today: an absurd position where a P5 member, eligible complainant with a credible complaint is told its complaint isn't valid. This is the danger of deciding you know better than the four corners of a legal document. That "spirit" trumps "letter."
We are seeing the E3, out of misplaced emotional attachment to an expiring deal, help Russia/China make a mockery of the UNSC. The precedent is dangerous & undermines the Council's utility. We have UNSCR 2231. Read it. Accept it. Don't like it? Pass a different one next time. END
