Europe’s snapback gamble on Iran

The coming weeks may prove decisive in Europe’s long struggle to manage Iran’s nuclear ambitions. On Aug. 28, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany (the “E3”) announced they will trigger the “snapback” mechanism under United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2231, formally initiating a 30-day process that is likely to culminate in the full restoration of all UN sanctions lifted under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The decision, immediately endorsed by the United States, marks a sharp escalation in Europe’s effort to constrain Tehran, while signaling a desire to keep Washington closely aligned and to reduce the risk of another cycle of conflict.

The unusually high stakes

Europe’s leverage is fleeting. On Oct. 18, the E3’s legal capacity to trigger snapback unilaterally will expire, ending what little procedural leverage remains. Meanwhile, Iran remains convulsed by internal political divides, economic crises, and the lingering fallout from Israel’s and the United States’ strikes on key nuclear facilities. The outcome of this 30-day process could determine whether Iran remains within the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) framework or drifts toward isolation and confrontation, with consequences extending far beyond the Middle East.

The E3’s decision has drawn immediate backing from Washington. Secretary of State Marco Rubio applauded the move while stressing that the US “remains available for direct engagement with Iran — in furtherance of a peaceful, enduring resolution to the Iran nuclear issue.” His statement highlights Europe’s effort to align closely with the US, both to deny Iran the chance to exploit transatlantic divisions and to ensure that increased pressure does not spiral into another round of conflict.

Snapback: Power and limits

At the center lies a powerful legal contrivance. Resolution 2231, which codified the 2015 JCPOA, allows any participant state to declare Iran in “significant non-performance.” Once such a declaration is made, referral to the Security Council triggers a 30-day countdown: unless members pass a new resolution affirming sanctions relief, all UN sanctions previously lifted under the JCPOA automatically return. The default mechanism effectively bypasses potential vetoes from Russia or China.

If triggered, snapback would revive six past resolutions (2006-2010), reinstating an arms embargo, prohibitions on ballistic missile-related activity, and sweeping financial restrictions. Iran’s nuclear and missile programs would face the sharpest blow. Even if enforcement is uneven, given that China and Russia likely will disregard some rules, the symbolic and psychological effects of UN condemnation would be substantial, deepening Iran’s economic siege, darkening investor sentiment, and further weakening the rial.

However, “symbolic” effects may be far more pronounced than material ones, given structural enforcement gaps, especially by the US — an issue that has enabled Iran to sustain significant oil exports to China and retain critical revenue streams despite nominal sanctions. Recent data confirms that Iran’s crude shipments to China reached a record high in June 2025, averaging up to 1.8 million barrels per day, mostly sold at steep discounts that encourage Chinese “teapot” refineries to bypass official restrictions. Washington has repeatedly signaled enforcement priorities on paper but taken limited practical action. Indeed, in June 2025, US officials clarified that despite high-profile executive activity, they have not imposed meaningful costs on China or Iraq for continuing trade with Iran.

Europe’s race against the clock

The E3’s announcement frames September as the critical window for action. Two deadlines drive the E3’s decision. First, Resolution 2231’s snapback window disappears on Oct. 18, after which any effort to reimpose sanctions would require fresh Security Council votes, vulnerable to Moscow or Beijing’s veto. Second, the European states see September as the procedural sweet spot, since South Korea holds the UNSC presidency, offering a neutral setting. By October, Russia will hold the gavel, complicating any future moves. The Geneva meetings of Sept. 2 and beyond are therefore cast as Europe’s last practical opportunity for a diplomatic workaround before snapback becomes a fait accompli.

This timetable elevates the Sept. 2 Geneva meeting into potentially the last real opportunity for a diplomatic workaround before Europe feels compelled to act. The International Crisis Group notes that the E3 offered a one-time six-month extension of the snapback deadline if Iran met conditions such as restoring IAEA monitoring and accounting for enriched uranium stockpiles — but Tehran rejected the proposal. Although the E3 countries are reportedly still open to limited, conditional delays, the public announcement of snapback activation signals that Europe is prepared to prioritize enforcement over patience.

Tehran’s defiance and division

Iranian officials reject the very idea that Europe can trigger snapback. Ebrahim Azizi, head of the parliament’s security commission, declared it “has no legal validity against Iran,” while conservative lawmaker Alireza Salimi warned Tehran might even exit the NPT. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi equated activation to “military aggression,” though he conceded it would make Iran’s situation “more difficult and complicated.”

Yet behind these threats, the regime is divided. President Masoud Pezeshkian’s “Reform Front” has reportedly broken taboos by suggesting dismantling uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. While hardliners insist enrichment remains their last bargaining chip against the United States, reformists see mounting isolation as existentially dangerous.

The fault lines reflect Iran’s strategic anxieties, since giving up the 60% stockpile would strip Tehran of leverage in any negotiations with Washington, disclosing uranium sites could expose them to further Israeli or US strikes, and even agreeing to a procedural extension would imply recognition of a mechanism the regime insists is illegitimate.

Crisis upon crisis

The nuclear issue intersects with broader domestic turmoil. Iran faces economic collapse, drought-driven water shortages, and persistent popular discontent. Political fractures within the elite deepen, and an increasingly repressive security apparatus braces for unrest.

The regime’s ability to survive both economic siege and internal unrest is rooted in enduring repression and adaptive sanctions-evasion. Iran has become exceptionally skilled at using shadow banking, intermediary shipping labels, and regional barter to circumvent Western restrictions, masking tens of billions of dollars in annual oil and petrochemical exports primarily to China. Official figures may understate the true scale of these flows, confirming the critique that Iran can “shrug off” poorly enforced sanctions and keep opposition muted through force. Meanwhile, US Treasury Department press releases detail new efforts to track this “dark fleet,” although enforcement obstacles remain acute.

Externally, Iran survives through Chinese oil imports, which blunt the impact of Western sanctions. This reality means snapback’s material bite may be limited. Its main effects instead lie in reinforcing perceptions of siege, destabilizing the exchange rate, and further isolating Tehran from global finance. But the deeper question is not just what sanctions exist on paper — it is whether they will be meaningfully enforced, and whether Tehran still feels real pressure to alter its course. This brings Europe to the heart of its dilemma.

The enforcement dilemma

Even if snapback revives the full weight of past UN sanctions, its practical impact is far from assured. Enforcement has long been inconsistent: the United States itself has tolerated Iran’s export of roughly 1.5 million barrels per day to China, while taking no meaningful action against Iraq’s continued imports of Iranian gas and electricity. This record makes it doubtful that Europe’s move will translate into airtight pressure.

Tehran, for its part, has grown increasingly adept at weathering sanctions. Reliance on Chinese purchases, parallel financial channels, and regional barter trade have blunted Western restrictions. The regime has combined this resilience with repression at home, ensuring that economic hardship does not translate into meaningful political opposition.

These realities shape the internal debate in Tehran. While reformists float proposals for dismantling enrichment in exchange for relief, the leadership around Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei sees little reason to compromise. In fact, Khamenei explicitly dismissed offers for direct nuclear talks, describing Western demands as “a grave insult” while calling the standoff over the country’s nuclear program “unsolvable.”

This messaging underscores the point that Iran’s leadership no longer expects sanctions to be enforced strictly and believes hardship can be endured — especially as repression keeps popular discontent from materializing into organized opposition. If sanctions are not rigorously enforced, they likely calculate, Iran can withstand the economic siege while avoiding concessions. This logic strengthens hardliners, who argue that yielding under pressure would only embolden the West. It also explains why Iranian officials continue to posture with defiance, projecting confidence rather than the behavior of a defeated state.

In this sense, the effectiveness of snapback will hinge less on the legal reimposition of sanctions than on Europe’s ability — together with Washington — to enforce them credibly, a test that will determine whether Tehran views this step as a genuine threat or merely symbolic.

For Europe, the enforcement dilemma is not only about Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also about its own credibility as a strategic actor — whether it can move beyond declaratory policy and wield genuine leverage on the world stage.

Legal disputes and geopolitical deadlocks

Iran is not without arguments. From Tehran’s perspective, Europe’s credibility was destroyed when the United States unilaterally exited the JCPOA in 2018, leaving Europe unable to deliver promised economic relief. Hence officials contend that Europeans now wield only the “stick” of snapback, while the “carrots” — sanctions relief and security guarantees — rest in Washington’s hands. Tehran, aware that sanctions may be inconsistently applied, undoubtedly factors this into its response.

Russia, for its part, has floated a draft resolution extending deadlines for six months if Iran shows movement toward partial compliance, hoping to shield its ally while frustrating Western unity. But snapback’s automatic design leaves Moscow able only to delay, not block, the process.

Navigating the dead end: A possible offramp

One slim path remains in sequencing rather than front-loading compliance. Instead of demanding full transparency immediately — a political impossibility in Tehran — Europe could propose a phased roadmap. In this approach, Iran would take limited and reversible steps to restore partial IAEA oversight, while the E3 uses the Security Council to buy time and coordinate with Washington. The sensitive issue of Iran’s 60% enriched uranium stockpile would be deferred to later stages, preserving bargaining leverage for both sides and acknowledging Tehran’s calculation that immediate enforcement may be incomplete.

The phased roadmap reflects the core challenges identified in the enforcement dilemma — balancing Iran’s demand for US assurances, Europe’s need for verification, and the limited coercive power of snapback sanctions. Without such compromise, the most likely outcome is collision, with sanctions pushing Tehran closer to NPT withdrawal and dismantling even the fragile non-proliferation framework that remains.

Conclusion: Leverage or diplomacy?

With snapback officially triggered, the decision calculus has shifted from potential to action. Europe faces a stark dilemma: enforce sanctions and risk provoking Iran into withdrawal from the NPT, or attempt a last-minute diplomatic reprieve, even as the procedural window for unilateral leverage closes in October.

The coming weeks will test Europe’s ability to translate legal authority into real-world leverage. Success depends not just on triggering snapback but on credible enforcement in coordination with Washington, navigating geopolitical deadlocks, and managing Tehran’s defiance. Whether Europe’s gamble succeeds — or diplomacy can still avert full confrontation — will determine both the future of non-proliferation and the credibility of Europe as a strategic actor.

John Calabrese is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and book review editor for The Middle East Journal.

Photo by AFP via Getty Images