"The Security Council's five permanent members and Germany, discussing Iran's nuclear-weapons program, have reportedly agreed on a mechanism intended to reactivate United Nations economic sanctions if Tehran breaches the deal currently under negotiation. Iran now is apparently reviewing the proposal.
If what is publicly known about this so-called 'snapback' formula is even vaguely accurate, it is an act of consummate folly. Allegations of Iranian violations would be referred to a committee of the Perm Five, Germany and (surprise!) Iran. This committee (which might also include other nations) would, through an as-yet-undisclosed process, decide whether Iran had breached the final agreement, and, therefore, whether the sanctions would come back into effect...
Deciding what constitutes a violation - and who gets to make that decision - obviously are the critical preconditions to tee up a decision on restoring sanctions. It is almost inconceivable that any permanent member would delegate that authority to an international bureaucracy, such as the IAEA, even if the prospective deal's verification and compliance provisions were adequate, which they manifestly are not.
Instead, given the U.N.-sanctions focus of the Perm Five and Germany, every likelihood is that this new committee will proceed by 'consensus,' which in U.N.-speak means every member will have a veto. If breaches were to be decided merely by majority vote of a committee, Russia and China simply would have given away their vetoes. Do we really believe they are that gullible?
Allowing Tehran any say in a U.N.-style committee reviewing its own alleged violations is roughly equivalent to providing Al Capone a seat in the jury room. At a bare minimum, formally involving Iran greatly enhances the prospects for inordinate delays, the obvious benefits of which will accrue to Iran..."