Iran: The Nuclear Deal.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Barack Obama

Ponsonby Rule Rules.

Last week, a deal was struck between Iran and six world powers in relation to the use and control of nuclear energy. Although the negotiations have lasted years, the response from some areas was fast and typical knee-jerk. Officials in Israel and Saudi Arabia were out of the gate to tell the world that the deal was a catastrophic mistake, almost before the signatories ink was dry. These countries are, of course, entitled to their opinions and their leaders probably felt the need to service home consumption. However, the proof of a treaty of this kind, good or bad, usually needs years to establish, not days or months.

It is not for me to evaluate the pros and cons of the Iran Treaty. I would observe merely that anything that has the possibility of furthering the cause of peace must be worth pursuing. In addition, those of us who have met and know ordinary Iranians will know that sanctions have hurt and that the lifting of those sanctions will probably help these people improve their lives and fortunes, making them much less likely to want conflict. Whether this percolates upwards is another issue.

My main concern, however, is the newspaper slant that the Iran Treaty is a done deal, so long as the American Senate ratifies it. The front page article in The Times of London on 15^th July, was devoted to the importance of ratification by the Senate with no mention being made of similar requirements by the governments of the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, Germany and the EU. The New York Times was more tempered in its reporting but nevertheless posed the deal as one where President Obama’s legacy was at stake, impliedly because a failure to get Congress approval marked the death of the Iran Treaty with damaging fallout for the President.

Matt Spence, The Times Washington correspondent, reported that “Congress is able to block the implementation of the nuclear deal with Iran by passing a resolution of disapproval.”  By implication, Spence suggests that if Congressional disapproval holds, the treaty is dead. 

Let me deal first with Congressional approval. Article I, Section 2 of the American Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. In this case, the Senate has 60 days to approve the treaty. If it decides not to do so, Mr. Obama has said he will exercise a veto, in which event it is for both Houses of Congress to decide whether to override the veto. To do this a two thirds majority in both Houses is required.

Let us assume the Senate rejects the Iran Treaty and Congressional disapproval holds. Is it dead? The answer is an emphatic NO. For example, the armistice at the end of World War I was codified into the Treaty of Versailles. The United States was a party to that treaty but it was rejected by the Senate. The cause of the rejection related to the creation of the League of Nations. Nevertheless, the Treaty of Versailles was not invalidated. Indeed, it became a cause of World War II.

In the United Kingdom, the executive, in the form of the Foreign Office negotiating team and the Cabinet, is subject to what used to be called the Ponsonby Rule, which now has the force of statute. There are two steps. The first is signing a treaty and the second is ratifying it. Signed treaties are laid before Parliament for 21 days before ratification, to see whether any MP wants to ask questions or propose a debate. If the latter, a government majority in that debate can be expected but at least there is a democratic process available to approve or reject. I suspect a similar process applies in the parliaments of other signatories.

The Iran Treaty will go ahead, even if the Americans reject it, unless the Treaty’s terms include a clause that rejection by one party will be treated as a rejection by all. I have not heard of any such clause. I accept that I am being “legal” and that the practical support of America will be needed, especially in financing inspections and overseeing the various checks. Nevertheless to report the Treaty as being entirely dependent on American approval is just plain wrong.