Return of canceled resolutions against Iran; Snapback, Western pressure policy and the sustainability of Iranian diplomacy
JCPOA and Snapback; Legal and Political Framework
The JCPOA (2015) was a comprehensive agreement between Iran and the P5+1 group that aimed to guarantee the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the suspension of sanctions. The ratification of the agreement and its registration in Security Council Resolution 2231 made it a legally binding text. The snapback mechanism envisaged in the agreement was designed as a legal instrument for the automatic reinstatement of lifted sanctions in the event of an alleged violation of Iran’s commitments and includes the following steps:
1. Notification of the alleged violation: sending an official letter to the President of the Security Council by one of the parties.
2. 30-day deadline for the Security Council: consideration of a draft suspension of the reinstatement of sanctions; if not approved, the sanctions are automatically reinstated.
3. Automatic reinstatement of sanctions: re-implementation of previously lifted Security Council sanctions.
However, what we are now witnessing is the abuse of this mechanism for purely political purposes. Snapback, whose legal purpose was to ensure the parties’ commitment, has become a tool for economic pressure and crisis-making; a clear sign of the lack of good faith on the part of the US and the E3 in international diplomacy.
Timeline of events
August 28, 2025: E3 activates snapback process with full US support.
September 9, 2025: Iran and IAEA reach agreement to resume technical cooperation and inspections.
September 19–26, 2025: Two Security Council meetings are held to review draft to postpone reimposition of sanctions.
September 26, 2025: Failure of Russian and Chinese draft to postpone reimposition of sanctions paves the way for sanctions to be imposed.
September 28–29, 2025: Previous resolutions are effectively reinstated and the EU implements sanctions.
The failure of the Russian and Chinese draft shows that the Security Council, under intense political pressure from the West, has effectively become incapable of monitoring and protecting international law. This event is a serious warning to all international actors to the extent to which legal decisions can be influenced by unilateral policies.
Returned Sanctions
Sanctions that have been returned in the form of snapbacks include the following:
- Arms bans and trade in sensitive equipment;
- Restrictions related to uranium enrichment and nuclear technology;
- Listing of individuals and entities, financial and banking sanctions;
- Restrictions on missile and ballistic programs.
Reintroducing these sanctions after the official end of the 10-year period of restrictions is not only illegal, but also has far-reaching consequences for the credibility of international legal mechanisms and shows that the policy of economic pressure has replaced real diplomacy.
Positions of actors
Iran (Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Statement of September 28, 2025):
- Considers the activation of snapback by the US and E3 as a clear abuse of the dispute resolution process.
- Restrictions and sanctions should be considered terminated on time, in accordance with the JCPOA and Resolution 2231.
- The E3 have violated the JCPOA by consistently failing to implement their commitments and supporting the military actions of the US and the Zionist regime.
- Iran rejects any return of the repealed resolutions and emphasizes that these actions do not create any obligations for Iran or other UN members.
- Iran is ready to immediately return to its JCPOA commitments if the European and US parties return.
- Any hostile action against Iran’s national interests will be met with an appropriate and decisive response.
E3 (UK, France, Germany):
- Iran has not fulfilled its commitments and activated the snapback, while they themselves have violated the JCPOA commitments.
The United States:
- Considers the return of sanctions as a tool to bring Iran back to the negotiating table and has also put secondary sanctions on the agenda.
Russia and China:
- Consider the activation of the snapback political, destructive and illegal and call for a diplomatic settlement.
International Atomic Energy Agency:
- Technical cooperation and inspections have resumed and technical monitoring will continue.
Critical and expert analysis
1. Legal instrument-building for political purposes:
The actions of the US and the E3 show that the West has preferred to use legal instruments for political purposes, rather than to build trust and real adherence to agreements. This is a clear message to the countries of the region and the world that international instruments can easily become a tool for pressure.
2. The weakness of the Security Council in the face of a committed actor:
The failure of the Russian and Chinese draft reveals the collective inability of the Security Council to protect international law and multilateral agreements. This institutional weakness has paved the way for unilateral and coercive actions and severely reduces trust in international mechanisms.
3. Iran's persistence on the legal and technical path:
By concluding an agreement with the Agency, presenting reasonable proposals, and preparing for an immediate return to its obligations, Iran remains a party committed to international law. This approach, in addition to strengthening Iran's legal position, sends a decisive message to the international community.
It suggests that principled and technical diplomacy replaces political pressure.
4. Long-term implications for global diplomacy:
The illegal return of sanctions undermines international trust and shows that the policy of economic and political pressure has replaced legal diplomacy. Such a trend can reduce the participation of countries in multilateral agreements and increase distrust in international institutions.
5. Lessons for designing enforcement mechanisms:
The snapback crisis shows the necessity of designing monitoring mechanisms based on collective cooperation and limits on political abuse. Any international agreement must have the capacity to prevent and control unilateral pressure in order to prevent the weakening of the credibility of diplomacy.
6. Message to regional and global actors:
Recent experience shows that countries that adhere to international law can, with a technical, transparent and good faith approach, survive political and economic pressures while preserving national interests and bringing international public opinion with them.
Summary and Conclusion
The activation of the snapback against Iran is a clear example of the conflict between law and politics in the international arena. Iran is pursuing its legal and technical path by maintaining stability, diplomatic goodwill and adherence to agreements, while the West has questioned the credibility of diplomacy and the JCPOA by abusing legal and political tools.
This crisis shows that without mutual respect for commitments and an approach based on good faith, no multilateral agreement will be able to maintain international stability and security. The snapback experience has also made the need to review international mechanisms and create a balance between law and politics more apparent than ever. With a legal, logical, and technical stance, Iran has sent a clear message to the international community: adhering to international agreements is a reliable path, but abusing legal instruments for political purposes not only questions the legitimacy of those instruments themselves, but also leads to deeper crises in global diplomacy.
QR code