Pushing Deadline for Iran Nuclear Deal, Negotiators Extend Temporary Sanctions Relief for Seven Days

Jun 30, 2015

Reading Time : 2 min

Although EU High Representative Federica Mogherini suggested that a June 30 nuclear accord was possible, several others have emphasized the significant hurdles that remain. Over the weekend, French negotiators proposed “indispensable” conditions that included limits on Iran’s nuclear research and production capabilities, sanctions snapbacks and verification of Iran’s nuclear sites—including those of a military nature. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius noted on Sunday that the conditions “have still not been accepted by everybody,” and British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond recognized that there were “some very difficult decisions and tough choices to be made by all of us.”  Iranian negotiator Abbas Araqchi described the days leading up to the target deadline as a “slow and difficult process.”  Media reports have stated that the negotiating parties have not agreed on the timing of sanctions relief for Iran and the monitoring mechanisms to be used to verify Iran’s compliance with nuclear commitments.

Additionally, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei may be pulling back on some of Iran’s commitments outlined in the April 2, 2015, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was intended to serve as the negotiating framework for a final nuclear deal. On June 28, 2015, Britain’s foreign secretary pointed out that there remained “major differences of interpretation in detailing what was agreed in Lausanne,” a concern reportedly shared by U.S. and European negotiators alike. Today, the United States issued a statement, in both English and Farsi, warning Iran that the April 2, 2015, framework must remain as the foundation of a final agreement. Recalcitrance by Iran in the coming days may foil a deal. Several Western leaders, including President Obama, have expressed their willingness to walk away from negotiations, and the British foreign secretary has said that “no deal is better than a bad deal.”  

Although the negotiating parties have agreed to extend sanctions relief until July 7, U.S. officials are hoping to finalize an agreement with Iran in time for the president to submit a draft to Congress by July 9. If Congress does not receive an agreement by then, it will have 30 extra days to review a nuclear accord (for a total of 60 days), and some congressional members have hinted at a legislative strategy aimed at rejecting a deal. Recent media reported that, if the president submits a draft nuclear agreement to Congress, Republican leaders—many of whom have been critical of the negotiating process—may force Congress to vote on a motion of approval designed to show that a minority of legislators actually support a deal with Iran.

It remains to be seen if the negotiators will be successful in finalizing a deal acceptable to all interested parties by July 7. We are closely monitoring the ongoing negotiations and will keep you apprised of any relevant developments as we learn of them. 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Trade Law

2023-01-26

At the end of last year, World Trade Organization (WTO) members agreed that the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the WTO will take place in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in February 2024. There is no doubt that the WTO is facing headwinds and is in need of a vigorous push forward. The UAE’s success in transforming itself into a global trade and digital hub and a leader in services trade could serve to drive a successful outcome at MC13.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2023-01-17

On December 21, 2022, the appeal arbitrators in the Colombia – Frozen Fries (DS591) World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute circulated their award (the “Award”). This was the second appeal conducted under Article 25 of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and the first appeal under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), a framework created by a group of WTO members to overcome the challenges posed by the non-operational Appellate Body.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2022-02-10

The United Kingdom just issued a new statutory instrument, effective immediately, which extends the authority to designate persons and entities under the U.K. sanctions against Russia.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-06-10

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin Gump’s webinar, “Protecting the Crown Jewels - New U.K. National Security Rules for Foreign Investment in a Post-COVID-19, Post-Brexit World.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-05-07

The clock is ticking down to the entry into force of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on July 1, 2020.  Leading up to that date, businesses have a unique advocacy opportunity to influence the implementing regulations and associated processes, such as legislative changes to Mexico’s domestic laws. Additionally, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), along with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts, have begun issuing guidance for the trade community seeking to obtain the benefits of the agreement. At this time, these guidance documents include a petition process for automakers to request alternative staging for the automotive rules of origin as well as general interim implementation instructions for USMCA entries. Still to come are regulations regarding the automotive labor value content requirements and Uniform Regulations regarding the customs provisions. Akin Gump and our partners at Dorantes Advisors in Mexico City have jointly developed brief summaries of these guidance documents and a timeline of key actions still to take place prior to entry into force. The materials are available here in both English and Spanish.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-03-02

Last week, in a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) concluded that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 does not offend the non-delegation doctrine. To most observers, the ruling does not come as a surprise, but the story on Section 232 and the non-delegation doctrine is not yet over.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.