Three European countries – Germany, France, and the United Kingdom – have recently threatened Iran that, unless it accepts a new agreement with the United States by the end of August, it will face the activation of the “Snapback mechanism” and the reinstatement of UN Security Council resolutions. This threat is not only indefensible from a legal standpoint, but it also carries dangerous consequences for diplomacy, regional security and the credibility of the international institutions.

It must first be recalled that the current crisis began with the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 – an action that constituted a flagrant violation of both the agreement itself and UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Instead of countering this unlawful act, Europe effectively aligned itself with it and failed to uphold its own commitments, including guaranteeing the sale of Iranian oil, creating banking channels and protecting European companies from secondary sanctions. Even the so-called INSTEX mechanism, designed to preserve a minimal level of trade, proved to be a failure.

Under such circumstances, the Europeans can no longer be regarded as genuine participants in the JCPOA, either legally or in practice. Accordingly, their claim to invoke the  Snapback mechanism – reserved for parties to the agreement – lacks legal validity. Furthermore, Europe has not gone through the necessary steps outlined in Articles 36 and 37 of the JCPOA’s dispute settlement mechanism, making its recent move a clear abuse of a legal instrument for political ends.

The manoeuver by the three European countries (E3) has no legal foundation, as it disregards the sequence of events that compelled Iran to take lawful remedial measures within the JCPOA framework. Iran fulfilled all of its commitments under the deal, and any suspended obligations were undertaken in accordance with the text of the JCPOA and Articles 26 and 35, which explicitly allow Iran to suspend its commitments if other parties fail to honour theirs.

Iran’s remedial steps were clearly a response to the US withdrawal and its complete breach of commitments, as well as to Europe’s prolonged inaction in addressing the situation. Therefore, Iran’s reciprocal measures cannot serve as a legitimate basis for activating the “snapback” mechanism. Moreover, as long as the consequences of the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA remain unaddressed, the dispute resolution mechanism cannot lawfully be applied against Iran.

The US and the three European countries are now demanding “zero enrichment,” despite the fact that both the JCPOA and Resolution 2231 of the Security Council explicitly recognise Iran’s right to enrich uranium within specified limits on level and stockpile size. In fact this right lies at the very heart of the JCPOA. Conditioning the avoidance of the Snapback mechanism on “zero enrichment” is a blatant violation of the text and spirit of the deal, effectively stripping Iran of a right already recognised by the international community.

Beyond the legal and political arguments surrounding the history of this matter, abusing this mechanism at a time when Iran’s nuclear facilities have suffered severe damage as a result of an unlawful attack by a former JCPOA participant is the clearest sign of bad faith.

The consequences of such an action would be highly dangerous:

Rewarding violators and punishing the victim; Iran would be penalised despite its long-standing compliance, while Europe’s inaction against the US withdrawal goes unaddressed.
Undermining the credibility of the Security Council and multilateral agreements; selective use of legal instruments erodes trust in the international order.

Blocking diplomacy and escalating tensions; reinstating past resolutions could negatively affect Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA and further destabilize regional security.

Setting a dangerous precedent for future agreements; sending the message that even if a country honors its commitments, other parties can rewrite the deal under political pressure.

Ultimately, it must be emphasised that the Snapback mechanism was designed to ensure compliance with the agreement – not to reward those who violate it. The action of the three European countries is legally baseless and politically detrimental to collective security. One cannot dismantle an agreement in practice, repeatedly breach its provisions, and act against its very purpose, while at the same time claiming to enforce it.

Iran remains ready to forge a realistic and sustainable agreement that would include strict monitoring and limits on enrichment in return for the lifting of sanctions. Failure to seize this fleeting opportunity could unleash destructive consequences for the region and beyond, at an entirely new level.

The responsibility of the international community – especially the members of the Security Council – is to stand against this blatant abuse and to prevent further destruction of the international order by a handful of law-breaking states.

Iraj Elahi is the ambassador of Iran to India.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.