Washington, DC – Experts caution that the recent decision by European nations to reinstate “snapback” sanctions against Iran could heighten global tensions, raising concerns about the potential for a regional conflict in the Middle East.
On Thursday, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom—Europe’s top economies—initiated a 30-day process to reapply sanctions due to what they identified as “significant” breaches of the 2015 nuclear deal designed to limit Iran’s nuclear activities.
Ryan Costello, the policy director at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), stated, “We are on a pathway to a situation where the sanctions will be reinstated, likely prompting Iran to retaliate in ways that could escalate the situation.”
Costello added that recent Israeli strikes on Iran could lead to increased violence. “This could trigger a domino effect, pushing us closer to a renewed conflict,” he warned.
The United States, which supported an Israeli bombardment of Iranian nuclear sites earlier this year, has welcomed the actions taken by the European countries.
Despite this, the administration under President Donald Trump remains open to negotiations with Iran; Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted, “We are still ready for direct engagement with Iran to pursue a peaceful resolution regarding its nuclear ambitions. The snapback doesn’t negate our willingness for diplomacy; it actually reinforces it.”
However, Costello emphasized that Iran was prepared for negotiations before the Israeli attacks disrupted the process. A round of discussions was set for June 15, but the strikes occurred just two days prior, causing indefinite delays.
Costello argued that for the US and European nations to resume nuclear discussions, they must first rebuild trust with Iran. “Many Iranians believe the talks were merely a facade; they suspect that Israel planned to strike Iran with US backing regardless of diplomatic efforts.”
Understanding Snapback Mechanism
The current crisis can be traced back to President Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement during his first term in 2018.
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) required Iran to limit its nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions. The agreement included a “snapback” clause, designed to allow for rapid reimposition of United Nations sanctions if Iran was deemed non-compliant.
This provision enables any party to the agreement—namely, the US, UK, Germany, France, Russia, or China—to trigger the return of six UN Security Council sanctions resolutions. Notably, this snapback is irreversible and cannot be vetoed by Russia or China, both of which are aligned with Iran.
In 2020, attempts by the US to invoke this snapback failed due to its non-participation in the agreement.
Since the US withdrawal in 2018, Iran has gradually advanced its nuclear program, though it insists it does not intend to develop nuclear weapons.
The recent decision to reinstate sanctions is seen as strategically timed ahead of the impending expiration of the snapback provision in October, which marks ten years since the nuclear deal’s implementation.
Analysts contend that the actions taken by the governments of Paris, London, and Berlin reflect an effort to leverage a once-obsolete provision to exert additional pressure on Iran.
Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, noted that while the snapback was intended to uphold the JCPOA’s terms, Europe now appears to wield it as a tool of coercion against Iran.
“The strategy has seemingly shifted to one of raw power—suggesting that force is the primary means of negotiation,” Toossi commented.
European Demands
The trio of European nations has stipulated three conditions for deferring the reimposition of sanctions by six months: Iran must engage in direct talks with the US, comply fully with the UN nuclear watchdog, and identify the location of its highly enriched uranium after the US-Israeli bombardments.
US officials speculate that the uranium might be concealed beneath the damaged facilities, although it’s possible Iran relocated it prior to the strikes.
While the European demands may appear reasonable at first glance, they present significant challenges for Iranian leadership to accept.
Tehran is expected to recommit to negotiations with Washington without any guarantees from the US or Israel that military action will not occur again.
Iran had also reduced its full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), after the watchdog’s failure to condemn the US and Israeli attacks, which Iran claims violated international law.
In recent weeks, Iran has permitted some IAEA inspectors to return to the nation, but the agency has not yet been granted access to analyze the damage at the enrichment sites.
Regarding uranium locations, Iran is concerned that revealing this information would make them targets for US or Israeli military strikes.
“If they disclose the location of their enriched uranium, it becomes a visible target for possible attacks aimed at further hindering Iran’s nuclear program,” Costello stated.
Consequences of Snapback Sanctions
European leaders argue the conditions are essential because Iran’s nuclear advancements pose a “clear threat to international peace and security.”
They assert that Iran’s non-compliance with the JCPOA is blatant and that critical sites of proliferation concern are not under IAEA surveillance.
The countries voiced concerns that “Iran has no civilian justification for its substantial stockpile of high-enriched uranium, which remains unaccounted for by the IAEA.”
Tehran has firmly rejected these assertions, contending that it was the European powers that initially violated the agreement by adhering to the US’s sanctions reinstatement from 2018.
Globally, many nations continue to enforce US sanctions out of fear of facing repercussions themselves, resulting in a struggling Iranian economy facing widespread implications.
However, renewed UN sanctions—including an arms embargo—could lead to unilateral sanctions being imposed by additional countries, further eroding confidence within the Iranian economy. Following Thursday’s announcements, the Iranian rial experienced a significant decline.
Toossi remarked, “The snapback triggers a psychological shock that exacerbates the economic situation, leading to further currency depreciation.”
A Shift in European Stance
Historically, European nations have been perceived as moderating influences against US aggression towards Iran. Despite complying with US sanctions, they vocally opposed Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018.
However, there’s been a notable shift towards a more aggressive stance against Tehran since President Trump took office in January. Recent months have seen European powers failing to condemn Israel’s military actions against Iran; some leaders have even seemed to signal endorsement.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany remarked, “This is dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us.”
Trita Parsi, the Quincy Institute’s executive vice president, linked Europe’s aggressive posture to its broader relationship with the US, noting growing suspicions about Iran’s support for Russia in the ongoing Ukraine conflict, leading Europe to view Tehran as a rising threat.
Additionally, severe US sanctions have nearly obliterated all trade between Europe and Iran. “Iran simply doesn’t hold significant weight for Europe anymore,” he noted in a recent interview, suggesting that aligning with hardline US policies may be increasingly appealing to European leaders with the current transatlantic relationship strained.
As tensions persist, the US continues its calls for Iran to dismantle its nuclear capabilities while Tehran insists on retaining its domestic uranium enrichment. Toossi pointed out an irony: Europe is invoking a provision of the JCPOA that allows Iran to enrich uranium, yet using it to push for a halt to enrichment entirely.
“The contradictions in this situation are striking,” he concluded.