By Ahmad Rafat
France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—the three European signatories (E3) to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iran nuclear deal – have officially triggered the “snapback” mechanism restoring all international sanctions on Iran that were in place before the deal was signed in 2015.
The E3 have sent formal letters to United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The UN Security Council now has 30 days to consider the request submitted by the European Troika.
The European Troika, in the context of the JCPOA, refers to France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (E3)—the three European signatories of the nuclear deal. These nations have taken a leading role in enforcing the agreement and pursuing diplomatic engagement with Iran.
The “snapback” mechanism, embedded in the Iran nuclear deal and codified in UN Security Council Resolution 2231, enables the rapid and automatic restoration of international sanctions on Iran if it breaches its nuclear obligations.
The mechanism was established as part of a negotiated agreement among the three European countries, China, Russia, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. It was formally incorporated into UN Security Council Resolution 2231, adopted in October 2015.
This resolution lifted all six prior UN resolutions that imposed broad sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.
UK, France and Germany Urge Islamic Republic to Agree Deal to Delay UN Sanctions
To reinstate these sanctions, the Security Council does not need to pass a new vote; on the other hand, a vote is required to extend their suspension. Russia and China, both allies of the Islamic Republic within the Council, are expected to push for a resolution to maintain the suspension.
However, this effort is unlikely to succeed, as the United States, France, and Britain — all of whom hold veto power — are expected to block it.
Nevertheless, Europe has extended another opportunity to the Islamic Republic to avert the reinstatement of sanctions.
During the 30-day window while the case remains on the UN Security Council’s agenda, Iran can still choose to reengage in negotiations and stop the process from moving forward.
The E3 held a meeting with Iranian representatives on July 25 in Istanbul, followed by a second round on Aug. 24 in Geneva — but both talks concluded without any progress.
During these discussions, Iran was given several conditions to prevent the activation of the mechanism. These included:
-
Allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to return and resume their work without restrictions,
-
Providing information on the whereabouts of 408 kilograms of 60 percent-enriched uranium, which Iran relocated to an undisclosed site following the 12-day war with Israel,
-
Reengaging in negotiations with the U.S., after five previous rounds had ended without success.
In recent days, a team of IAEA inspectors returned to Iran and, on Aug. 28, visited the Bushehr nuclear facility — widely regarded as the country’s only site not suspected of military-related activities.
However, Iran has yet to grant access to other nuclear sites, particularly those deemed “suspicious” by the IAEA.
Meanwhile, hardline voices within the Islamic Republic have gone so far as to call for the arrest and execution of IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, who has been under round-the-clock anti-terror protection in Austria for the past week.
The National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Iranian Parliament (Majlis) issued a statement denouncing Grossi as a “puppet of the U.S. and the Zionist regime.” It announced that Tehran no longer has confidence in the IAEA.
The commission urged President Massoud Pezeshkian’s administration to fully enforce the law that mandates suspending cooperation with the IAEA.
Iran has remained utterly silent about the 408 kilograms of 60 percent-enriched uranium in its possession.
According to the latest IAEA report, as of June — prior to the Israeli and U.S. airstrikes — Iran had stockpiled enough 60 percent-enriched uranium that, if further enriched, could be used to produce six nuclear weapons.
European diplomats report that during a recent meeting in Geneva, Iranian officials expressed some willingness to resume direct talks with the U.S. However, they made this contingent on Washington providing guarantees that no military action would be taken during negotiations.
In a letter to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas following the activation of the “snapback” mechanism, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated: “Iran is ready to resume fair and balanced diplomatic negotiations, provided the other parties demonstrate seriousness and goodwill, and refrain from actions that undermine the chances of success.”
However, Araghchi’s statements are widely dismissed, especially considering a speech by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Aug. 24.
In his remarks, Khamenei stressed that the regime would firmly resist U.S. attempts to “bring Tehran under control.”
He criticized proponents of negotiations with the U.S. as “short-sighted” and declared: “These issues are unsolvable.”
Khamenei also reaffirmed his position against Israel, stating: “Words and condemnations alone are ineffective. Like the courageous people of Yemen, we must take decisive action to sever all support for the Zionist regime.”
Khamenei was addressing Houthi missile strikes targeting Israel and commercial vessels in international waters.
He also declared that Iran is prepared to take “any necessary action,” expressing hope that the “deep and lethal cancer” of Israel will be removed from the region.
Despite suffering significant setbacks — including to its proxies such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and most recently Ansar Allah in Yemen — Iran continues to depend on these groups, along with the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in Iraq, as key strategic instruments in its confrontation with Israel, the U.S., and the broader West.
Ali Larijani’s recent visits to Beirut and Baghdad, following his appointment as Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, should be understood within this broader context.
While Lebanon’s new government has reportedly expressed intentions to disarm Hezbollah, Larijani used his meetings with Lebanese officials to reaffirm Iran’s support for both Hezbollah and its armed wing.
Meanwhile, in a televised interview on Aug. 6, Araghchi remarked: “This is not the first attempt to disarm Hezbollah. The enemies have witnessed the power of the resistance’s weapons on the battlefield.”
In his initial response to the activation of the “snapback” mechanism, Araghchi condemned the move as “unjustified, illegal, and lacking any legal basis,” and warned that: “The Islamic Republic of Iran will take an appropriate response to defend its rights and national interests.”
The term “appropriate response” likely alludes to the use of proxy groups to carry out retaliatory actions.
Shortly after Larijani met with Hezbollah leaders in Beirut and Araghchi’s remarks in Tehran, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Naim Qassem, issued a stark warning: “Any attempt to disarm Hezbollah will face a harsh and unimaginable response.”
He went further, threatening: “If necessary, we will go to war to resist this Israeli-American plan [to disarm Hezbollah].”
This threat was echoed on Aug. 29 by Sayyed Hussein al-Moussawi, an advisor to the Hezbollah secretary-general, who warned that any effort to disarm the group could spark a civil war.
Many Lebanese citizens and political leaders — in a country once dubbed the “Switzerland of the Middle East” — are taking these threats seriously. The Lebanese Army lacks the capacity to confront Hezbollah, and other sectarian militias were disarmed long ago.
Military intervention by any country other than Israel is unlikely.
The U.S. and France, which suffered heavy losses during their 1983 deployment — 241 U.S. Marines and 58 French troops killed in Hezbollah bombings — are unlikely to return.
Even the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), whose mandate was recently renewed for another year, has failed to contain Hezbollah.
If a civil war breaks out, Israel may feel compelled to intervene, potentially inflicting heavy losses on Iranian-backed Shiite militias. However, the resulting collateral damage could be catastrophic for Lebanon.
Despite facing significant pressure, Hezbollah and the Houthis may still carry out operations on Iran’s behalf.
However, such actions are unlikely to deter the West from reimposing severe sanctions. In fact, they could further isolate Iran both regionally and internationally, and may even serve to justify military intervention.
Iran’s only viable path forward is to abandon its military and nuclear ambitions and fully comply with the demands of Europe and the U.S.
Even within the regime, there is a growing chorus urging the abandonment of its military nuclear ambitions and a complete halt to uranium enrichment.
