Iran\\\'s nuclear deal in trouble?

Since the preliminary agreement between Iran and five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany following hectic parleys in Switzerland on Iranian nuclear issue, members of the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have asked for having the text of the final agreement vetted by the Congress after a June 30 negotiating deadline. Being determined in their resolve to derail any agreement that goes against Israel, lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats alike in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, adopted a resolution which is likely to be endorsed by the entire Senate and House of Representatives soon. There is no doubt the bipartisan resolution is the product of hectic lobbying by pro-Israel groups in the USA. The bill has been titled as 'Iran Nuclear Amendment Review Act of 2015' which would deal with a wide range of issues including Iran's nuclear programmes, its ballistic missiles work and its support for terrorism. The bill requires that any final deal undergo a 30-day review period by the Congress before sanctions are lifted against Iran.
President Barack Obama has now backed out from the threat of vetoing the resolution under pressure. A destructive showdown between the Congress and the President has been avoided in the process. This happened on April 14. Even in its current form, it still runs a major chance, if followed, of derailing diplomacy. If the bill is passed by both houses of the Congress, it will increase the chances that negotiations for a comprehensive deal would collapse. On the other hand, Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei announced recently that American leaders were 'lying about the deal's details". Khamenei pointed out Iran proved its compliance with its promises, as the US had demanded. Iran would not sign any agreement if the US does not end all sanctions on Iran immediately. It now appears two poles are apart to reach a comprehensive deal in such mutual distrust.
Negotiations with Iran are being conducted by representatives of the countries including US, China, Russia, Great Britain, France----- all permanent members of the Security Council--- and Germany. Negotiations with Iran are of international nature. It is no way a bilateral agreement or treaty with the US. If the comprehensive deal is signed by all countries under the nose of the Security Council, the deal would become an instrument of the United Nations. If any provision of the deal is  violated by Iran, the UN would take action in that case. It is worth recollecting the fact that Iran is a signatory to an additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003. This means that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has the ability to detect and monitor clandestine activities in nuclear field. Therefore, responsibility to detect and monitor clandestine activities of the Iranian regime lies with the international organisation. If the IAEA could not succeed, all permanent members of the Security Council could take it up jointly.
A hawk in the Republican Party who was immediate past US Ambassador to the UN under President George W.Bush has this to say in an article in The Wall Street Journal of March 17 that "no Security Council action can prevent the US from using force to protect itself from Iranian nuclear weapons." While quoting Article 51 of the UN Charter John Bolton says that decisions relating to self-defence rest with each member-state." Incidentally, John Bolton did not have the approval of the Senate. He was appointed as Ambassador by President George Bush during recession of the Congress.  
The question will arise if and when Iran  would require nuclear weapons. Since the US is a veto-power member in the Security Council, it can apply the power to stop implementing the comprehensive agreement if it contains such provision for producing nuclear weapons in distant future.

The writer is a retired diplomat from Bangladesh amjad.21@gmail.com