0

Related to this.

Russia says UNSC resolution does not ban Su-30 fighter jet sales to Iran, But US Department of State Undersecretary for Political Affairs, Thomas Shannon, claimed that under the resolution, such weapon deliveries “require the submission of relevant notification to the Security Council and this notification’s endorsement by the Security Council.”
Question. If Russia decide to deliver the weapon to Iran, then what would be the response of US both to Iran and Russia?

  • 1
    Under Obama or Clinton administration, the answer to "what would be the response" would be a Very Sternly Worded Warning. <insert Youtube video of "...or I shall taunt you again" from Monty Python for illustration>. Possibly "sanctions" on 1 or 2 entities who aren't meaningfully harmed by said sanctions for practical reasons, but which look good in the media. – user4012 Apr 6 '16 at 17:18
  • What about under Bernie Sanders administration? – Conspiria Apr 7 '16 at 6:18
1

The provision that Iran's acquirement of heavy weapons be regulated by the UNSC is not legally binding, i.e. it is not subject to enforcement under Chapter 7. But even if it were, a permanent member like Russia could always get away with violating a UNSC resolution, as any fallout from attempting to enforce the provisions could be dealt with by Russian vetoes.

If Russia were to proceed with such actions that the US would strongly object to, then US-Russian relations could worsen. A lot depends here on what the US and Russia have discussed privately at the time the text of the provisions was drafted. E.g. did Russia get guarantees from the US that any proposed Russian weapons sales would be evaluated objectively based on Iran's needs to modernize its army and not face blanked bans? Did the US change its mind after the Iranian missile tests? So, these are all relevant factors that we can only guess about.

It is quite analogous to UNSC resolution 1441 which was adopted after the US gave guarantees that the enforcement provisions in it would not be used to start a war against Iraq. A second UNSC resolution would be needed. But later the US and Britain changed their mind on that, in their opinion the relevant circumstances had changed. Whatever disagreements there were, there was of course nothing the other UNSC members could do to stop the US and Britain.

2

More of a comment than an answer, but obviously I needed the space.

This is the text of UNSC (PDF download), page 100 (emphasis mine) :

  1. All States may participate in and permit, provided that the Security Council decides in advance on a case-by-case basis to approve: the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from or through their territories, or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, to Iran, or for the use in or benefit of Iran, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems, as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or related materiel, including spare parts, and the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance, or use of arms and related materiel described in this subparagraph.

    This paragraph shall apply until the date five years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.

  2. All States are to:

    (a) Take the necessary measures to ensure that any activities described in paragraphs 2, 4, and 5 occur on their territories, or involving their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or involving their flag vessels or aircraft, only pursuant to the relevant terms of those paragraphs, and also to prevent and prohibit any activities inconsistent with these provisions, until the date ten years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier;

    (b) Take the necessary measures to prevent, except as decided otherwise by the UN Security Council in advance on a case-by-case basis, the supply, sale, or transfer of arms or related materiel from Iran by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in the territory of Iran, until the date five years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier;

I am no legal expert, but even in that case is beyond my understanding how someone can tell that the resolution is not binding. I will wait for the opinions of "experts" in any media that is not under the control of the iranian government.

  • how someone can tell that the resolution is not binding It binds to ask for approval of Security Council, not bans supplies at all. If Russia will make a deal with USA (and possibly with other members of Security Council), then such supplies will become legal. – Matt Apr 6 '16 at 12:25
  • 1
    @Matt, yes, but that is not what the "experts" in the OP link says; the link basically says that the resolution is not binding so there are no restrictions and that Russia can freely sell weapons to Iran with or without the Security Council approval. – SJuan76 Apr 6 '16 at 12:28
  • There are two points there: "is not legally binding" and "cannot be enforced with punitive measures". The first one is obviously (at least I believe so) not true; the second one is precisely what OP asks about. Though I think that this question is a bit speculative, and Russia wouldn't sell jets without prior approval anyway, but the question still has sense. – Matt Apr 6 '16 at 12:36
  • 1
    @Matt as I said, it is more of a comment about the binding question than a complete answer. The question of punitive measures is the old question about enforcement of UN resolutions. That said, it would justify further economic sanctions against Russia, or even considering that Iran has not cumplied with the treaty and get to its denounce by the UN/US, and the reinstatement of the situation pre-UNSC 2331 (total embargo and travel ban). – SJuan76 Apr 6 '16 at 12:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .