European patience with Iran is running out as nuclear talks stall, with Paris warning that UN sanctions could return unless Tehran offers verifiable commitments.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot on July 15 told his EU counterparts that Paris and its partners in Berlin and London will snap back UN sanctions against Iran if there is no “firm, tangible and verifiable commitment” from Tehran.
UN embargos on arms, banks, and nuclear equipment were lifted a decade ago under the 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
This "snapback mechanism" can be triggered before an October 15 deadline, giving Europe limited but critical leverage in ongoing talks.
Ali Vaez, the director of the Iran program at the International Crisis Group, says the E3’s “ultimatum is very serious.”
He told RFE/RL’s Radio Farda that the West is becoming increasingly more confident that the mechanism is “leverage that should not be lost” in order to compel Iran to, at the very least, allow international inspectors to visit its nuclear sites and, at most, strike a deal with the United States.
The European trio, also known as the E3, are pushing for the UN’s nuclear inspection team to return to Iran, partly to stop Tehran from attempting to reshape its nuclear program after the damage inflicted by US and Israeli strikes in June.
Under the terms of the 2015 accord, China and Russia, which have traditionally backed Iran in nuclear talks, do not have the power to block a sanctions snapback. While the expiration window to reapply the sanctions closes in October, the Europeans can choose to delay the snapback beyond the expiry date in order to allow more time for further negotiations.
Iran has been warning for months against the re-imposition of UN sanctions, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi telling Le Monde last week that it would have “the same effect as a military attack.”
“From our perspective, such a move would mark the end of France and Europe's role in the issue of Iran's peaceful nuclear program,” he said.
US In ‘No Rush’ For A Deal
While the Europeans warn that the window to reach an agreement is closing, US President Donald Trump has downplayed the urgency for a new deal.
At a press briefing this week, he told reporters, “[The Iranians] would like to talk. I’m in no rush to talk because we obliterated their sites,” referring to the June 22 strikes on nuclear facilities in Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz.
Trump claims the extensive damage from US and Israeli strikes has given Washington the upper hand, insisting any talks would happen strictly on American terms and reiterating his “no nuclear weapon for Iran” red line.
Since the Israel-Iran war came to a halt following a US-brokered cease-fire on June 24, Trump has sent mixed messages about diplomacy with Tehran. His comments have ranged from there being no need for an agreement given the state of Iran’s nuclear program to speaking about reaching a “permanent deal” with Iran.
Iranian and US negotiators were scheduled to meet in Oslo last week but the meeting was postponed, with apparently no new date agreed upon.
Snapback? Bring It On -- Or Don’t
Media reaction to the potential re-imposition of UN sanctions has been mixed. Some have escalated the rhetoric by questioning the rationale, while others have raised the alarm about the potential fallout.
Conservative outlets in particular have been dismissive of the impact of sanctions.
Khorasan newspaper described the triggering of the snapback mechanism as “European self-sabotage,” arguing that it would further consolidate the E3’s status as a biased party.
“The threat of snapback is less a sign of Europe’s resolve than it is an admission of their political failure to play an independent and effective role on the international stage,” it said.
The conservative Jahan News website made a similar argument, claiming that because European nations don’t act as a monolith and each pursue different levels of relations with Iran, reapplying UN sanctions would “exacerbate internal divisions” in the bloc.
But more moderate outlets highlight the economic and political repercussions of being subjected to UN sanctions again.
Hammihan newspaper said the sanctions would “undermine Iran’s international credibility” and would legitimize US sanctions against Tehran, which the Islamic Republic have long insisted are illegal.
It argued that because Iran has been under US economic sanctions since 2018, UN sanctions would be “far more limited than in the past.” It added, however, that there would be a psychological impact on society which would, in turn, affect the value of the national currency.
Shargh newspaper also warned against downplaying the impact of the sanctions, saying, “The snapback mechanism is not only an economic threat but also a form of modern hybrid warfare against Iran that could affect national security and regional stability.”
