In general, most of the sanctions that would be reimposed in case of the snapback from the JCPOA should not have a great impact on the Iranian economy. Still, Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi stated that should the E3 decide on a SnapBack, it would be viewed as a declaration of war against Iran. How could this make sense, and what should be considered in this article.
The nuclear agreement between Iran and the European Union, including the US in 2015, lifted many sanctions, including UN resolutions 1737 through 1929, that mostly targeted entities with military or nuclear backgrounds. After the US left the agreement in 2018, there was much talk about the SnapBack mechanism, and the then foreign minister of Iran and chief negotiator Zarif explicitly denied its existence. This mechanism allows the Europeans to reinstate UN resolution sanctions without the usual bureaucracy. The JCPOA was meant to hold for ten years and be followed by a sequential agreement. Such an arrangement should be taken into account in the US administration’s vision, especially as the Ukraine war is ongoing and has an enormous impact on Europe. This is the time to remember who your friends are.
The E3 cannot postpone the decision much longer. Even though it is a SnapBack mechanism, in order to take effect in October 2025, the initiation should be by the end of August. The war with Israel didn’t help much there, and even before that, the Iranian missile attacks with hundreds of ballistic missiles launched against the only Western democracy in the Middle East is not something that can be overlooked. Quite on the contrary, there has never been better proof of what the Iranian missile arsenal was meant for, no better evidence to the need to include missile technology and production limits in the sequential agreement. The E3, actually representing the EU, would not like to take that road alone. A classic European decision could be to postpone the SnapBack, which is almost the same as canceling the mechanism. It will not be much of a surprise if the E3 cave in face of the threat of war, a war that could cause Islamic-tainted unrest and even terror attacks in many European cities. On the other hand, once you give in to terror, you are predestined to be the victim. If you behave like prey, you’ll soon end up on someone’s plate.
So, the E3 are not in a hurry, rightfully believing that even if the sanctions SnapBack, there is no real harm in it, and the Iranians should first come to terms with the US.
But this is exactly what bothers Tehran. They need a side table agreement with Europe, desperately. Iran has lost not only the war, but also much of its military capability, its deterrence, and proxies, or allies if you want. The spoils are being divided and the deals for the next decades are being decided on, Iran not included. The economy is on its knees and the horizon is not promising. The only one useful left on their side seems to be China, which is having a laugh exploiting the Iranian weakness. There is no one less interested in a nuclear agreement for Iran, as China will continue to benefit from the dependency of Iran’s oil sector on what then would become almost the only customer.
At this point, Iran has nothing left to offer in the negotiations that the US hasn’t already demanded. A complete surrender and a stop of all nuclear activities, a limitation on the missile programs, and the international involvement of the IRGC. With this as a starting point, Iran may have to make concessions in human rights or worse, clerical supervision.
That is why Iran desperately needs the E3 on their side. Apart from threatening, they will go all the way with promises and postponed concessions just to be able to bring something to the US table.
It is not in the European interest to play that game with Iran. There may not be a second chance to ensure that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons, surely not one with such a low opening bid.
Iran has proven that it will make use of offensive capabilities; it has shown little to no restraint, and above all, Iran has proven that it will try and return to their initial intent to build a nuclear device, as they did in the early nineties, by the end of the millennium and with AMAD until 2004. Now they’ve been caught again red-handed, so what kind of an agreement are we talking about?
E3 should be decisive and clear, and above all in full coordination with the US. This is not the time to show independent thinking but team play.
It is all up to the E3 and their integrity. If they stop or even postpone the SnapBack mechanism, everyone loses except Iran. Europe will be forever dependent on the goodwill of the ayatollahs, the US will lose the edge in the future nuclear agreement without the E3 backing, and essentially, we will have another, most likely uglier war to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.
But should the E3 play along with the US, announce, sooner rather than later, the activation of the SnapBack mechanism, Iran will have to face the music and finally enter negotiations that will lead to a long-term, sustainable, and implementable solution.
