Germany, France, and the UK are moving toward triggering the snapback mechanism, even though past experience shows that unilateral pressure rarely deters; more often, it exacerbates crises. This step comes precisely as Tehran, following joint U.S.-Israeli military attacks and an initial suspension of cooperation, has resumed talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and welcomed the return of its inspectors. In this context, European threats are more a signal of short-term coercion than a tool to improve dialogue—coercion that, in the long term, only blocks diplomatic channels.
JCPOA: A Fragile and Incomplete Legacy
From the outset, the JCPOA was built on a fragile balance between Iran’s economic interests and nuclear limitations. The Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal in 2018 shattered this balance, and Europe, which had promised to compensate, never filled the gap. Mechanisms such as INSTEX were more symbolic than economically effective and brought no real gains for Iran. Consequently, Tehran gradually rolled back JCPOA restrictions, creating a cycle of distrust that continues today.
Now, with the “sunset clause” approaching in October 2025, European states are attempting to use the snapback mechanism as a new lever. The key question is: can the threat of automatic sanctions replace the promised economic benefits, or will it simply eliminate the last chance to rebuild trust? Evidence suggests that Iran views its compensatory actions as legitimate and has responded reciprocally whenever the other side failed to uphold commitments. This cycle has accelerated the gradual collapse of the agreement.
Risks of Snapback Scenario for Europe
Although the snapback mechanism may seem like a powerful leverage tool, it faces major practical obstacles. First, Russia and China are likely to reject the unilateral reinstatement of sanctions, causing fragmentation in Security Council decisions. The result of such a split would not only weaken the JCPOA but also damage the UN’s credibility as a guarantor of international peace and security.
The second risk is Iran’s potential response. Tehran could consider multiple options: from further limiting cooperation with the IAEA and raising enrichment levels to even examining withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Such steps would bring Iran to a point of no easy or cheap return. If Europe underestimates this risk, it will face a crisis beyond its diplomatic capacity to manage.
Europe’s Responsibility and Alternative Paths
If Europe truly seeks to preserve monitoring mechanisms and rebuild trust, it must choose a different path. The essence of diplomacy is a “calculated give-and-take,” not unilateral demands. If Europe positions itself in a row of threats and pressure rather than as a mediator, dialogue will quickly close, leaving confrontation as the default path.
Iran has repeatedly emphasized its readiness to return to commitments within a balanced agreement framework. Europe’s responsibility is to avoid repeating past mistakes and act as a facilitator. Otherwise, these three countries will effectively become drivers of the crisis.
Iran’s Position: A Clear Message to Europe
In response to Europe’s decision, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi wrote on X: “This action will severely undermine ongoing talks between Iran and the IAEA and compel Iran to take appropriate measures.” He recalled that Europe not only failed to compensate for the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, but also did not fulfill its commitments during the transition period (October 2023), even imposing new sanctions on Iran’s non-military economy.
Additionally, Iran’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Amir Saeed Iravani, described the move by the three European countries as “illegal and unacceptable,” emphasizing: “Iran is committed to diplomacy but will never negotiate under threat or coercion.” This stance signals that Tehran does not consider threats a legitimate dialogue tool and that any direct pressure could backfire.
In other words, Tehran’s message to Europe is clear: pushing Iran into confrontation will render Europe an “ineffective and outdated” actor.
Europe at a Historical Crossroads
Europe now faces a strategic choice. Activating the snapback mechanism means accepting unpredictable consequences: the complete collapse of the JCPOA, Iran’s compensatory responses, weakening of the Security Council, and Europe’s exclusion from any future diplomatic initiatives. Conversely, pursuing diplomacy with a more balanced approach leaves a small window to rebuild trust.
Europe’s real test lies not in the power to exert pressure but in its ability to balance interests with obligations. Otherwise, the snapback mechanism will not manage the crisis—it will trigger it.
NOURNEWS