Iran Peace Deal Delayed – France and the UN to the Rescue?

The US and Iran are close to hammering out the remaining differences between them in what President Donald Trump calls a “mostly negotiated” peace deal. Or are they? The administration says one thing, and Iran says something else. We went from expecting an announcement any moment to, well, now it could take a few days, and we aren’t going to rush it. Meanwhile, France has been working on another plan for a UN resolution over the Strait of Hormuz, for whatever that’s worth. To be clear, UN resolutions typically aren’t worth much.

Iran and the Never-Ending Negotiations

Liberty Nation News National Security Correspondent Dave Patterson recently asked: “Is the dance between America and Iran interminable? Is the Trump administration falling into a forever fruitless negotiations trap with a maniacal regime in Tehran that has no intention of ever achieving closure in its talks with the US?”

Well, those are good questions – and for a while it seemed the answer to both was “yes.” Then came the revelation Saturday, May 23, that Iran and the US had “mostly negotiated” an agreement for peace (at least for the next 60 days to give time to work out a more lasting arrangement), and that Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the international waterway to its pre-war status. But wait, Iran then came back and said no such agreement had been made, and that the Strait of Hormuz would remain under Iranian control.

Well, so much for that – looks like Mr. Patterson’s point holds. 

By Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was calling the Iran deal “still a work in progress,” and President Trump – who just the day before made it seem like it would be signed, sealed, and carried out any moment – said that we weren’t going to rush into things and that we’d only sign a good deal. This, he explained, could still take a couple of days. Another US official reportedly told CNN later that the US was still nailing down language on “a couple of points.”

What points, you might ask? Well, presumably the issues are the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Sure, those are just a couple of points – but they’re the biggest sticking points in the whole conflict between the US and Iran going back many years.

The problem is that one of three things is likely to occur with this deal, based on the current rhetoric and the almost half-century history of US-Iran conflict. First option – and probably most honest: The US won’t back down from demands that Iran must abandon its nuclear ambitions and give up control of the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran will refuse to do so. Therefore, no matter how close we get on any other item, the deal never comes to fruition.

Second, the US finally caves on those two points, modifies the deal so that Iran can sign it, then goes on to make vague threats and establish imaginary lines and such in an attempt to save face. This might sound familiar, since it’s precisely what the Obama administration did. Finally, maybe Iran will acquiesce and promise to open the strait and stop pursuing nukes – then get right back to business as usual once the US lifts its blockade. This last option is probably the most likely, given Tehran’s behavior over the last 47 years.

Trump, France, and UN Resolutions

President Trump, however, has explained that he won’t lift the blockade until a deal is reached – and that if this doesn’t happen soon, the ceasefire will end and the bombing will begin anew.

A bevy of the president’s detractors – and even some of his supporters now – aren’t pleased with the war in Iran, and they especially aren’t going to like it when he starts up operations again. And, of course, when they tell the story, Trump will be the villain who violated the ceasefire while poor old Iran was just doing its best.

But have no fear, the UN is here! And France has been working all along on a resolution that will reopen the Strait of Hormuz without the US having to keep up its campaign to bully Iran (or something like that). The French draft for the UN Security Council resolution would establish an “international mission to restore movement in the Strait of Hormuz.”

There’s another resolution, drafted by the US and Bahrain, that demands Iran halt attacks and laying mines in the strait. This has been up for consideration for a couple of weeks now, and Russia and China keep indicating they’ll veto it. France, too, has yet to back the US-Bahrain text. Despite that, the French resolution would establish a defensive mission along with the British to demine the strait and escort ships through. It could be voted on, French diplomats say, once the US and Iran come to an agreement on a lasting ceasefire – though even that plan, Russia and China have threatened to veto.

Here’s the problem with UN resolutions: They’re too easy to veto – or, for that matter, to simply ignore. Such resolutions are not in and of themselves enforceable; they’re basically just “sternly written letters.”

Every member of the UN Security Council could vote for the US-Bahrain resolution or the France-UK resolution, except China and Russia – but either one of those two countries could veto it and tank the whole vote. Furthermore, even if there are no vetoes and the resolutions pass, the only way to enforce them is with military action. As LNN explained recently, the UN could pass a resolution demanding any nation pay a fine, take an action, or “have its UN ambassador jump around in a circle on one leg while patting his own head,” and there’s absolutely nothing stopping the target of that resolution from simply ignoring it.

The only way to really enforce a UN resolution is to convince other member states to take military action to back it up. Well, that’s essentially what the US has been doing without the UN’s help in any meaningful way since Epic Fury began.