In a move that feels more theatrical than strategic, Britain, France and Germany have triggered the so-called “snapback mechanism” under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, aiming to reimpose United Nations sanctions on Tehran.
Only days later, China and Russia—not traditionally known for kowtowing to Western outrage—have leapt to Iran’s defence, dismissing the European manoeuvre as “legally and procedurally flawed”
The snapback was activated by the European trio, the E3, in response to Iran’s breach of uranium production limits. Tehran justified its actions as retaliation for America’s unilateral withdrawal from the agreement in 2018.
Despite the urgency of the E3’s move, the angle is not without irony: the United States, by pulling out first, undermined the very foundations of the deal—a point not lost on Tehran or its new allies.
In a joint press missive from Tianjin, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, alongside his Chinese and Russian counterparts, rapped Europe for abusing the UN Security Council, warning that selective enforcement threatens the very bedrock of multilateral diplomacy.
The Diplomatic Limits of Snapback
The snapback mechanism is designed for clarity: once invoked, global sanctions lifted under the 2015 agreement return. Unchartered territory? Not quite—but the politics surrounding enforcement remain treacherous. While the thirty-day countdown to reimpose sanctions is underway, China and Russia, both veto powers, cannot remove those sanctions—but they could thwart their implementation, or see them treated as purely symbolic.
Tensions escalate as Iran resists full nuclear inspections, citing June’s Israeli and U.S. air raids on its facilities. Across recent months, talks from Istanbul to Geneva have yielded little clarity—leaving Europe exasperated and Tehran defiant. To stall sanctions, Russia circulated a draft resolution proposing a six-month extension—an offering more cosmetic than conciliatory, given the entrenched positions.
A Geopolitical Realignment
This episode marks more than a diplomatic standoff—it signals the accelerating polarisation of global power blocs. China and Russia, both original signatories to the nuclear deal, now openly support Iran’s rejection of European-led enforcement: a striking rebuttal to claims of Western moral leadership.
On the ground, Tehran’s ties with Moscow are buttressed by the “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” signed in January 2025—a sweeping treaty spanning defence, energy, cybersecurity and economic cooperation, valid for the next two decades. Meanwhile, Beijing remains Iran’s most steadfast economic partner, absorbing nearly all of its oil exports through layered evasion schemes such as “teapot refineries” and dark-fleet tankers.
Together, these blocs are weaving a parallel economy and diplomatic narrative that’s increasingly impervious to Western dominance. Tehran’s rejection of the snapback is not just resistance—it is leverage in a shifting international order.
Europe’s Dilemma: Symbolism over Substance?
By invoking snapback, the E3 may have hoped to rally global support for reining in Iran’s nuclear programme. Instead, they face united opposition from three powerful capitals—undermining cohesion at the UN and exposing Europe’s diminishing capacity to shape global affairs.
The E3’s actions risk rendering the Security Council a theatre of acrimony, not a forum for resolution. When the EU’s diplomatic clout fails to sway powerhouses like Russia and China, invoking sanctions becomes performative rather than practical.
What’s more, Iran’s parliament appears ready to take even more alarming steps—consideration is mounting, should snapback proceed, to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty altogether. At that moment, enforcement will not only be politically fraught—it might be meaningless.
Lessons from Tehran’s Defiance
Europe’s snapback gamble reflects a broader crisis of global diplomacy: unilateralism may satisfy domestic audiences, but fails the test of coalition-building. Iran’s ascent toward strategic autonomy—bolstered by Beijing and Moscow—is further entrenching a multipolar world resistant to Western legalism and rhetoric.
This episode should serve as a wake-up call. When even long-standing allies align against you, enforcement without consensus becomes hubris, not leadership. Anyone betting that sanctions alone will restore trust to the nuclear order may have already lost.
Main Image: By Nanking2012 – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21905875
