Last Thursday, Rep. Johnson (R-Wis) introduced a Senate resolution concerning the validity of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”). The resolution states that the congressional review requirement of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as added by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (Act), does not apply to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) announced on July 14, 2015, because the President failed to comply with the transmission to Congress requirements. The resolution is essentially predicated on the belief that the President did not disclose “side agreements” made as part of the Iran nuclear deal.

The resolution goes on to say that in order for the substance of the transmission to become “the supreme Law of the Land” it would need either to be treated by the Senate as a treaty or Congress would need to enact new implementing legislation that supersedes the mandatory sanctions the JCPOA purports to supersede. Finally, the resolution states that the JCPOA is not “the supreme Law of the Land,” and the President has a constitutional duty to ensure that the Iran sanctions laws continue to be executed faithfully.

Ummm ok, but the sanctions relief provided by the JCPOA doesn’t actually require legislation in order to supersede the mandatory sanctions, because the sanctions relief being provided does not actually purport to supersede any mandatory sanctions. The ability to offer the sanctions relief provided under the JCPOA exists pursuant to powers provided to the President under those same mandatory sanctions legislation that the resolution seeks to protect from being superseded. All the President is doing is utilizing the limited waivers the Congress provided him when they passed those laws, and using his discretion under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to rescind a few Executive Orders and remove a number of parties from the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDN List”). In other words, the President is merely using the authorities Congress gave him to extend sanctions relief, as opposed to acting beyond or in contravention of those authorities.

Further, the resolution’s reminder that the President must execute the Iran sanctions laws faithfully seems a bit trite judging by the number of administrative subpoenas concerning violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations that we have been seeing recently, and the fact that OFAC continued to designate parties under Iran related sanctions authorities throughout the course of the P5+1 negotiations.

All in all this proposed resolution says nothing, and does nothing, but it is another reminder of just how distorted the view of the Iran nuclear deal has become given the politics surrounding it. For those people in the sanctions compliance field seeking to avoid confusion, its probably best to ignore most of what you hear coming from the media, or even Congress, and just wait until OFAC issues guidance to understand what your Iran sanctions’ obligations and opportunities are in the post-deal environment.

The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in OFAC matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrariassociatespc.com