On August 14, local time, the trump administration encountered a “humiliating” diplomatic defeat in the UN Security Council: the draft resolution proposed by the US government to extend the arms embargo against Iran indefinitely not only met with clear opposition from China and Russia, but also eight members of the Security Council, including Germany, France and Britain, the traditional allies of the United States, also chose to abstain, with only Dominic The Republic of Nigeria, as a member state, supported the United States. < p > < p > according to Reuters, after China signed the “Iran nuclear agreement” with Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia in 2015, the UN Security Council also adopted a resolution called “No. 2231 (2015)”. On the one hand, the resolution expresses its approval for the adoption of the Iran nuclear agreement, and on the other hand, it establishes some mechanisms to urge and encourage Iran to comply with the agreement, such as lifting many sanctions imposed on Iran before the United Nations. Among them, the conventional arms embargo imposed by the United Nations on Iran in 2007 will be invalid five years after the agreement is passed, that is, in mid October 2020. Then Iran can buy conventional weapons from other countries. However, it is absolutely impossible for the trump authorities in the United States to accept this situation. Therefore, after withdrawing from Iran’s nuclear agreement in 2018, the trump authorities made a fuss over the matter again, and on August 14, local time, put forward a draft in the United Nations Security Council, calling for an unlimited extension of the arms embargo on Iran. < / P > < p > of course, as we said at the beginning of our article, the United States lost miserably in this vote and only got the support of one country. Other traditional allies also abstained in this vote because they were very dissatisfied with the United States’ withdrawal from Iran’s nuclear agreement. However, the New York Times also pointed out that the trump administration has not failed completely because there are other ways to use, which will make Iran feel worse. Originally, according to the report of the New York Times, as well as the information provided by Reuters, Foreign Policy magazine and other media as well as some think tanks in the United States, there is also a “insurance” clause which is extremely beneficial to the United States in the “resolution 2231 (2015)” adopted by the UN Security Council in 2015 to support the Iranian nuclear agreement. The clause states that if any of the six participating countries (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom) of Iran’s nuclear agreement alleges that Iran has violated the agreement, the UN Security Council must vote on whether to continue to lift the sanctions imposed on Iran by the UN Security Council within 30 days of receiving the complaint. < / P > < p > and if the vote cannot be passed within the 30 day period, Iran will “return to pre liberation overnight” after the 30 day period, and be re imposed with a number of more severe sanctions imposed on it by the UN Security Council before 2015. < / P > < p > Yes, this clause is designed to be so “weird”. The US national public broadcasting network (NPR) pointed out in an article introducing the “resolution 2231 (2015)” in 2015 that the United States can directly use the “snapback” insurance clause to impose severe sanctions on Iran, while other permanent members of the Security Council with veto power, even if they oppose the US approach, can not directly use the veto power Blocking the United States can only stop the United States by initiating a vote, but this vote can be vetoed by the United States with its veto power. In other words, the US national public broadcasting network believes that this “insurance” clause is tantamount to protecting the United States from direct veto by other permanent members of the Security Council. This year, when Obama published an article on the “nuclear policy” of the United States, it was also revealed that the “insurance clause” of the “U.S. < p >” was also sold to the U.S. Congress in March this year. Therefore, according to the New York Times and Reuters, before the UN Security Council voted on the draft resolution on indefinite extension of Iran’s arms embargo proposed by the U.S. trump authorities on August 14, Trump’s side had repeatedly threatened this “insurance” clause, saying that if the Security Council did not adopt the draft resolution proposed by the United States government, Trump’s side had repeatedly threatened this “insurance” clause The U.S. side will use this clause of the Security Council’s “No. 2231 (2015)” to directly complain about Iran’s violations, so that Iran will again suffer the severe sanctions previously imposed by the UN Security Council. After the UN Security Council suffered a disastrous defeat in the Security Council, many Western media believed that the trump authorities would attack Iran through this “insurance” clause in the next step. Iran also said the next few weeks and months were “critical” for Iran. Of course, this method is also very ugly, even extremely rogue. In the headline of another report on the matter, the New York Times sarcastically said: in order to put pressure on Iran, U.S. Secretary of state pompeio decided to adopt an agreement abandoned by trump According to the reports of Reuters, the New York Times and foreign policy, since the U.S. trump administration has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear agreement in 2018, whether the United States is still a “participant” of the Iran nuclear agreement has become a controversial issue. Moreover, according to a Reuters report in June this year, China and Russia have already taken actions in this regard, and are ready to propose that the US side has lost its qualification and power as a participating country due to the US government’s announcement of withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement. Foreign policy articles also show that Germany, France and Britain have doubts about whether the United States still has the qualification to participate in the agreement. However, according to the analysis of a think tank called “defense of Democracy Fund” in Washington, the United States still has room to continue to play rogue. According to the think tank, if China and Russia believe that the United States is no longer a participant in the Iran nuclear agreement, then China and Russia will have to put forward a motion and vote in the Security Council in terms of procedure, and that the vote is only a “procedural matter” in order to avoid the veto power of the permanent members of the United States. However, the United States can still object to this, saying that the vote involves “substantive matters” rather than “procedural matters”. In this way, the Security Council must first launch a vote on the nature of the matter. According to the past practice, such a vote is a vote on “substantive matters”. Then the United States can use its veto power to veto the Chinese and Russian motions. Therefore, although the United States seems to have lost a game in the Security Council vote on August 14, as the world’s most crafty rogue country, the United States may have to struggle with Iran for a while.