Is the deal in danger? The Majlis of Iran, its elective legislative body, recently passed a law outlawing arbitrary inspections of military nuclear facilities, interviews with scientists, etc. For Iran’s viewpoint, reports the Tehran Times:
The Iranian parliament voted on Sunday to ban access to military sites and documents and inter- view with nuclear scientists as part of a possible nuclear deal with world powers.
Of the 213 lawmakers present, 199 legislators, some chanting “Death to the America,” voted in favor of the bill. Three lawmakers opposed the bill and five abstained.
The bill also demands the complete lifting of all sanctions against Iran as part of any final nuclear accord. …
Talking to reporters, legislator Ali Motahari said the bill would not affect the trend of the talks negatively and that it would not “tie the hands of [the country’s nuclear] negotiators.”
Motahari also noted that inspection of the country’s military and non-nuclear sites would never be allowed unless permitted by the Supreme National Security Council.
LawFare’s Yishal Schwarz notes:
… the vote of the Majlis is not yet binding; the bill still requires ratification by the Guardian Council.
However,
As I’ve written before, the entire structure of the NPT rests on the IAEA retaining access to whatever sites it deems necessary for ensuring the peaceful nature of a country’s nuclear program. This assumption is already codified in Article 73 of the comprehensive safeguards agreement (that Iran has already signed) and its rearticulation is the primary purpose of the additional protocol that Iran committed to signing and implementing under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
But beyond Iran’s own existing legal responsibilities, comprehensive IAEA access is, simply put, the reason why the West is at the negotiating table. No concession, agreement or commitment matters if the world cannot be confident that Iran isn’t simultaneously advancing its nuclear program impermissibly at some secret, off-limits site.
He believes the Obama Administration will try to paper this over. PJ Media has a similarly cynical outlook:
You would think that what the Iranian parliament has done would be a deal killer. In order for a deal to be reached, the US will have to make massive concessions. But this deal is no longer about stopping Iran from getting the bomb — if it ever was. This is about securing Obama’s legacy and allowing us to pretend that the Iranian nuclear program has been checked.
Rick Moran at American Thinker has a similar viewpoint:
Ordinarily, these conditions would be deal-breakers. But never underestimate the capacity of President Obama and Secretary Kerry to cave in to Iranian demands. They may massage the language a bit, but in the end, in order to get a deal, they will give the Iranians everything they want.
HNGN reports an interesting detail:
Iranian parliament, however, added amendments that would renounce its own power to veto a deal between Iran and group of six nations, reported Radio Free Europe. Lawmakers also gave supervision (of nuclear deal/final draft of negotiations between Iran and P5+1) rights to Supreme National Security Council, a body consisting of officials appointed by Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
“We won’t agree to a deal without that. We expect that there will be many voices and opinions on the difficult issues as we work towards a final deal. But our team is focused on what is happening in the negotiating room,” a State Department official told Fox News.
Perhaps the situation isn’t entirely dire? My take is that the Majlis is a rather nationalistic body which does some posturing, but the capacity to get things done may lie with other bodies, such as the Supreme Leader, the Guardian Council, and perhaps the Revolutionary Guard. The proof will be in the pudding.
