WANA (Aug 23) – Iran–U.S. nuclear talks have once again entered a complicated phase—one that, according to experts, has become even more difficult to resolve following recent regional developments and the 12 day conflict between Iran and Israel. In this context, the roles of Europe, the United States, and global powers such as China and Russia will significantly shape the fate of Iran’s nuclear file.

 

Europe’s Goals in Repeating the Snapback Threat

According to Rahman Qahremanpour, an international affairs analyst, the three European countries are seeking to regain their lost global standing. After Europe’s weakened position during Trump’s presidency and the Ukraine war, the EU is now trying to reassert itself as an influential international actor by leveraging the snapback mechanism and taking a role in the Palestinian issue.

 

Although Europe knows that activating this mechanism would return Iran’s case to the UN Security Council—thereby strengthening the U.S. role—it is attempting to preserve its influence in managing Iran’s nuclear file by both threatening and delaying the process.

Foreign Ministers of the European Troika. Social media/ WANA News Agency

Foreign Ministers of the European Troika. Social media/ WANA News Agency

The Need to Prevent the Return of UN Sanctions

From this analyst’s perspective, the return of UN sanctions could have serious consequences for Iran—from economic pressure and harm to businesses to rising domestic political demands such as withdrawal from the NPT. He stresses that the experience of 2006–2007 showed how returning the case to the UN Security Council makes the situation far harder for Iran to manage.

 

Qahremanpour argues that there is no reliable legal mechanism to prevent activation of the snapback clause, and that only a political agreement could stop sanctions from returning.

 

The Decisive Role of the U.S. in the Stalemate

Currently, negotiations are deadlocked because of Washington’s insistence on “zero enrichment” and Tehran’s refusal to compromise on its key sensitivities. According to Qahremanpour, Israel’s attack on Iran on June 12 disrupted the previous balance, leaving the U.S. with little reason to soften its position. On the other hand, Iran views major concessions as tantamount to surrender.

 

Based on this analysis, only three scenarios could break the deadlock:

 

1. A shift in the U.S. position, recognizing Iran’s right to enrichment—even if only in a limited or temporary form.

 

2. Iran granting concessions to Washington’s key demands, though this option would be extremely difficult to accept domestically.

 

3. The involvement of more powerful mediators than Oman and Qatar—particularly China, which some believe could play a decisive role.

Tripartite Meeting of the Deputy Foreign Ministers of Iran, China, and Russia – March 14, 2025 / WANA News Agency

Tripartite Meeting of the Deputy Foreign Ministers of Iran, China, and Russia – March 14, 2025 / WANA News Agency

The Challenges of Chinese and Russian Mediation

However, expectations from Moscow and Beijing also face serious limitations. Russia, tied down by the Ukraine war and geopolitical tensions in the Caucasus and Central Asia, lacks the capacity to play a meaningful role. China, although more capable, pursues a cautious foreign policy and is reluctant to risk its relations with the West by paying a heavy price for Iran.

 

Taken together, these circumstances leave Iran with two difficult choices: preventing the return of UN sanctions or accepting an extension of the snapback threat. At the same time, without either a shift in Washington’s approach or the entry of a powerful mediator, the chances of overcoming the current deadlock remain slim. The key to managing the nuclear crisis, therefore, lies not in legal arguments but in political and diplomatic solutions.