WANA ( Jul 21) – Russia’s envoy to Vienna has denounced European signatories to the Iran nuclear deal for threatening to trigger the “Snapback Mechanism,” calling the move legally and morally unfounded.

 

Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna, reacted on X to a post by Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi, who had warned of a potential move by the E3 (France, Germany, and the UK) to activate the mechanism. Ulyanov wrote:

 

“Indeed, the E3 has no legal or moral right to launch the so-called Snap Back mechanism to reimpose previous anti-Iranian sanctions.”

 

On Sunday, Araghchi wrote on X:

 

“In a letter addressed to UNSG Antonio Guterres, the President of the Security Council, EU High Rep Kaja, and members of the UN Security Council, I have outlined why the E3 lacks any legal, political, and moral standing to invoke the mechanisms of the JCPOA and UN Resolution 2231 (2015).

 

Through their actions and statements, including providing political and material support to the recent unprovoked and illegal military aggression of the Israeli regime and the US; rejection of the main pillars of the JCPOA; and their longstanding and ongoing failure to uphold their commitments, the E3 have relinquished their role as ‘Participants’ in the JCPOA, making any attempt to reinstate terminated UNSC Resolutions null and void.

 

Iran responded to the unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA by first exhausting the accord’s dispute resolution mechanisms before gradually implementing remedial measures under Paragraph 36 of the JCPOA, going to great lengths to convince other then-‘Participants’ to return to compliance with their obligations. However, the E3 have reneged on their commitments and actively contributed to the so-called U.S. ‘maximum pressure’ policy—and recently, the military aggression against our people too. Actors with such a record ought to be the last to claim ‘good faith’.

 

The E3 cannot and should not be allowed to undermine the credibility of the UN Security Council by abusing a Resolution to which they themselves have not been committed. The E3 must heed their own advice to the US in their letter of 20 Aug 2020 and ‘refrain from any action that would only deepen divisions in the Security Council or that would have serious adverse consequences on its work’.

 

As stressed in my letter, ‘Iran has shown that it is capable of defeating any delusional “dirty work” but has always been prepared to reciprocate meaningful diplomacy in good faith’.”

In recent months, the European trio—Britain, France, and Germany—have dramatically escalated their threats against Iran. These countries now claim the right to invoke a remedial measure within the nuclear agreement known as the Snapback Mechanism, despite having failed to fulfill their own obligations under the JCPOA. Chief among these was the normalization of trade relations with Iran, especially after the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the deal in 2018 and reimposed sanctions.

 

The E3 no longer veil their anti-Iranian posture behind diplomatic rhetoric. They openly support the aggressive and unlawful military actions of the Israeli regime and the United States against Iran’s territorial integrity, while simultaneously threatening Iran with the reimposition of UN sanctions under the Snapback Mechanism.

 

If triggered, the Snapback would reinstate all pre-JCPOA United Nations sanctions on Iran. However, many analysts argue that such a move lacks not only a strong legal basis but also legitimacy. Meanwhile, certain technical and diplomatic maneuvers are underway that could significantly alter the trajectory of Iran-Europe relations.

 

The Snapback Mechanism, as outlined in Articles 36 and 37 of the JCPOA and in paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), allows any P5+1 member (the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Russia, or China) to unilaterally trigger a process that reinstates all previous UN sanctions on Iran without requiring a Security Council vote, if Iran is found to be in “significant non-performance” of its obligations.