USAs tidligere FN-ambassadør John R. Bolton er kritisk til premissene for Iran-avtalen. Hvis Iran bryter avtalen, skal USA kunne gjeninnføre sanksjoner. Men da har Iran forbeholdt seg retten til å annulere hele avtalen. nytimes.com.
Avtalen har innebygget et paradoks: Hvis den ene siden bryter og motparten innfører sanksjoner, kan den som bryter avtalen annulere den!
In two provisions (Paragraphs 26 and 37), Iran rejects the legitimacy of sanctions coming back into force. These passages expressly provide, in near identical words, that “Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA” — Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — “in whole or in part.”
Thus the inexorable pattern will not be: Iran violates the deal; sanctions snap back; Iran resumes compliance. Quite the reverse. The far more likely future is: Iran violates the deal; sanctions snap back; Iran tells us, using a diplomatic term of art, to take our deal and stuff it.
Abrogating the deal, of course, would come only after Iran had reaped the economic benefits of having its assets unfrozen and the sanctions ended. The Europeans (among others) will have been suckered back into economic relationships that will cause as much pain to them as to Iran if they are abandoned. Sadly, the ayatollahs know the Europeans better than Mr. Obama does.