Agencies | Washington:
As Iran and the United States prepare to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in Geneva on June 19, one provision of the proposed 14-point framework is drawing particular attention for its potential long-term legal and diplomatic implications.
Clause 13 of the MoU, published by Iran’s state-linked Mehr News Agency, calls for the “ratification of the final agreement through a decision by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).” While public focus has largely centred on sanctions relief and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, this clause could prove to be one of the most consequential elements of the agreement.
At its core, the provision seeks to elevate any future Iran-US agreement beyond a bilateral commitment by embedding it within the international legal framework of the United Nations.
Understanding Ratification
In international law, ratification is the formal process through which a state accepts a treaty as legally binding. While the signing of an agreement signals political intent, ratification transforms that commitment into a legal obligation under both domestic and international law.
The process generally requires approval through a country’s constitutional mechanisms. In the United States, major treaties typically require the consent of two-thirds of the Senate. In Iran, international agreements must be approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis) and reviewed by the Guardian Council before taking legal effect.
Clause 13, however, goes beyond domestic ratification. Tehran is seeking an additional layer of legitimacy and legal weight through endorsement by the UN Security Council.
Why the Security Council Matters
Among the various organs of the United Nations, the Security Council is unique in its ability to adopt decisions that are legally binding on all 193 UN member states.
The Council consists of five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—alongside ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms. Any one of the permanent members can veto a resolution.
For a resolution to be adopted, it must secure at least nine affirmative votes and avoid a veto from any permanent member. Resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter carry particular significance, as they create binding international obligations related to the maintenance of international peace and security.
This authority makes UNSC endorsement a powerful diplomatic tool and explains why Tehran views it as an important safeguard.
Lessons from the JCPOA
Iran’s insistence on Security Council ratification is rooted in its experience with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the landmark nuclear agreement reached between Iran and the P5+1 powers.
Shortly after the accord was signed, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2231, endorsing the agreement and establishing a legal framework for its implementation. The resolution paved the way for the lifting of UN sanctions while also incorporating a “snapback” mechanism that allowed sanctions to be reimposed if Iran was found to be in violation of its commitments.
However, the arrangement failed to prevent the United States from withdrawing from the agreement in 2018 under then-President Donald Trump. Washington subsequently reimposed sanctions despite international efforts to preserve the deal.
For Tehran, that episode demonstrated both the value and limitations of Security Council endorsement. While Resolution 2231 provided international legitimacy, it could not compel the United States to remain a participant in the agreement.
Iran’s Search for Stronger Guarantees
Iranian officials have acknowledged that Security Council ratification is not a foolproof guarantee against future policy reversals in Washington.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei has stated that any future agreement should be formalised through a UNSC resolution to ensure compliance with international legal norms. At the same time, he has cautioned that Iran does not regard such a resolution as an absolute safeguard, citing past instances where the United States ignored or withdrew from internationally endorsed arrangements.
The proposed clause therefore reflects a pragmatic calculation: while UNSC ratification cannot prevent a future US administration from abandoning a deal, it can significantly increase the diplomatic and political costs of doing so.
A future withdrawal would not only represent the abandonment of a bilateral agreement but could also be viewed as defiance of an internationally endorsed framework.
The Limits of Security Council Enforcement
Despite its authority, the Security Council has limited ability to enforce compliance against its own permanent members.
The JCPOA experience highlighted this weakness. Although Resolution 2231 established mechanisms to monitor Iranian compliance and reimpose sanctions if necessary, it offered no practical means to compel the United States to remain committed to the agreement.
The Council’s structure itself presents a challenge. The veto power that enables permanent members to block resolutions also shields them from effective enforcement when they choose to disregard a policy they previously supported.
As a result, UNSC ratification can enhance legal legitimacy and political pressure, but it cannot guarantee long-term adherence by major powers.
Challenges Ahead
Securing Security Council approval for any final Iran-US agreement will require support from all major stakeholders, including the United States, Russia and China.
Russia and China have traditionally maintained closer strategic ties with Tehran, while Western powers have frequently relied on UNSC mechanisms to pressure Iran over its nuclear programme. Any final text submitted to the Council will need to navigate these competing geopolitical interests.
The memorandum expected to be signed in Geneva is not the final agreement. Instead, it is intended to serve as a framework for approximately 60 days of negotiations aimed at producing a comprehensive settlement covering Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions relief and enforcement mechanisms.
For Tehran, Clause 13 represents an effort to ensure that whatever emerges from those negotiations receives the strongest possible international legal backing.
Whether Security Council endorsement can provide the assurances Iran seeks remains uncertain. The collapse of the JCPOA demonstrated the limits of international legal mechanisms when confronted with shifting political priorities. Nevertheless, Iranian policymakers appear to believe that a deal supported by the Security Council offers greater protection than one that relies solely on bilateral commitments.
As negotiations move forward, the debate over UNSC ratification is likely to remain a central issue, reflecting broader questions about the durability of international agreements and the effectiveness of global institutions in enforcing them.
