Article: Why the “Snapback” Move against Iran Lacks Legitimacy

The debate over the so-called “snapback” mechanism the attempt by France Germany and the United Kingdom to restore past UN sanctions against Iran has once again emerged at the United Nations. Yet from both a legal and political perspective the European initiative stands on shaky ground.

In The Name of God

Why the “Snapback” Move against Iran Lacks Legitimacy

 

The debate over the so-called “snapback” mechanism the attempt by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom to restore past UN sanctions against Iran has once again emerged at the United Nations. Yet, from both a legal and political perspective, the European initiative stands on shaky ground.

At its core, the “snapback” idea claims that any participant of the 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) can trigger a process leading to the reimposition of pre-2015 UN sanctions. However, that process is bound by very specific rules and those rules have not been respected.

 A Flawed and Incomplete Process

The JCPOA’s dispute resolution mechanism was deliberately designed to be gradual, consultative, and based on consensus. Before any issue reaches the UN Security Council, parties must exhaust several stages of dialogue, including ministerial-level discussions within the Joint Commission.

The European trio’s January 2020 move to trigger this process skipped those stages. No ministerial-level session was ever convened to address their complaint, meaning the procedure was never completed. Moreover, as legal experts in Russia have pointed out, the Joint Commission never adopted clear procedural rules making it impossible to argue that the mechanism was ever fully activated in the first place.

The JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution 2231 form a single, inseparable framework. One cannot bypass the JCPOA’s built-in process and jump directly to the Security Council. Doing so violates both the letter and the spirit of the agreement.

 Iran’s Steps Were within Its Rights

When the United States unilaterally left the JCPOA in May 2018 and re-imposed sanctions, Iran continued to fully implement its commitments for another year. Tehran formally launched the dispute settlement mechanism on 10 May 2018, seeking to resolve the issue through diplomacy.

Only after this process failed and after waiting a full year did Iran begin to gradually reduce its commitments in May 2019. These steps were entirely legal under Articles 26 and 36 of the JCPOA, which allow a party to suspend performance if others fail to meet their obligations.

These were not acts of defiance, but carefully measured responses meant to restore balance to an agreement that had been undermined by others.

 European Non-Compliance

The European countries now claiming to activate snapback are themselves in breach of the JCPOA. After the U.S. withdrawal, the EU and the E3 (France, Germany, and the UK) issued an 11-point statement promising to protect economic cooperation with Iran. None of these pledges were honoured.

Instead, the EU and the E3 have repeatedly expanded sanctions against Iranian individuals, companies, and transport sectors. On 18 October 2023 known as the JCPOA’s “Transition Day”  they officially announced they would not carry out the scheduled lifting of sanctions.

Under international law, a party that fails to uphold its own commitments cannot invoke the rights of the same agreement. This principle was reaffirmed in a joint letter issued by the foreign ministers of Iran, Russia, and China in August 2025.

 No Consensus at the UN Security Council

Even within the Security Council, the European notification lacked support. Russia and China, both permanent members, declared that the European move was “invalid and without legal effect.” In their joint statement with Iran, they stressed that any action contradicting Resolution 2231 cannot create binding obligations for UN member states.

This echoes what happened in 2020 when the United States attempted the same maneuver. Thirteen of the fifteen Council members rejected Washington’s claim, and the President of the Council refused to act on it due to lack of consensus.

Recent votes in September 2025  one on continuing sanctions relief and another on extending Resolution 2231 again revealed a divided Council, showing that the so-called “snapback” enjoys no meaningful international support.

 Changed Realities, Lost Relevance

Beyond procedure, the global and regional context has changed. Many of the nuclear sites and activities mentioned in old UN resolutions no longer exist in their previous form. Moreover, recent military attacks by Israel and the United States against safeguarded Iranian facilities have altered the entire discussion.

Under these circumstances, trying to “revive” outdated resolutions not only lacks legal justification but also sends a deeply troubling political message: punishing the victim of aggression rather than the aggressor.

As noted by Iran, Russia, and China, Resolution 2231 already resolved the nuclear issue in a comprehensive way. Returning to pre-2015 sanctions would be detached from today’s realities and counterproductive to diplomacy.

 Looking Ahead: Resolution 2231 Nears Its End

Given these legal and political flaws, Iran considers the European attempt to trigger snapback null and void. The UN Security Council’s decision not to extend Resolution 2231 confirms that it will expire naturally on 28 October 2025, as originally planned under the JCPOA timetable.

When that happens, Iran’s legitimate rights under international law including the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes and to engage in scientific cooperation  will remain intact. The old sanctions resolutions, long rendered obsolete, will not return.

 A Matter of Credibility

Ultimately, this issue is about more than legal formalities. It is about whether international commitments still carry meaning, and whether powerful states can selectively interpret agreements to their own advantage.

Upholding the lawful expiration of Resolution 2231 is essential not only for Iran but for the credibility of the UN system and the very principle of multilateral diplomacy.

 

The Embassy of Islamic Republic of Iran – Bandar Seri Begawan