Alwaght- The recent developments related to the West activating the "snapback" mechanism which means return of all of the UN sanctions against Iran have once again disclosed the fundamental differences in the legal interpretation of the 2015 nuclear deal and its appendices among the Eastern and Western powers.
As the expiration of the nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), draws closer, the US-submissive European countries claim that they have the right to reinstate all the international sanctions on Iran. In the eyes of the West, reliance on the articles about the reinstatablity of the sanctions is not only legitimate, but also necessary for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Moscow and Beijing firmly reject the West's legal standing, citing the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) and UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Russian and Chinese officials have repeatedly argued that European powers lost their legal authority to reimpose sanctions. They contend that the US withdrawal from the accord, followed by Europe's failure to uphold its commitments, voided the original obligations, rendering the "snapback" mechanism invalid.
This fundamental clash between Eastern and Western legal interpretations highlights a deep rift over the legitimacy of Western actions and complicates the diplomatic standoff over Iran's nuclear program. The stark division at the Security Council, pitting Iran, Russia, and China against Western nations, demonstrates how conflicting interpretations of international law and competing strategic interests are severely challenging global unity.
The snapback mechanism was established under Resolution 2231 to act as so-called deterrent. Its design allowed for the automatic reinstatement of six previous rounds of UN sanctions if Iran were found in "significant non-performance" of its commitments under resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747, 1803, 1835, and 1929. So, with the expiration of the nuclear deal, clinging to the disputed and controversial articles of the nuclear deal, the Westerners have once again chosen a confrontation with Tehran.
West's empty hand in making consensus against Iran
Before the nuclear deal was signed ten years ago, the international conditions were in a way that the Washington, through labeling the Iranian nuclear program as dangerous to the world's peace and security, build a substantial consensus against Tehran. At the time, six UN Security Council resolutions were adopted with major support, facilitating the diplomatic pressure and imposition of sanctions against Iran for the US.
However, more than a decade has passed, and the global landscape has been transformed by shifting power dynamics. The West no longer possesses the leverage to forge a global consensus against Iran, and its unilateral pressure campaigns have lost their former potency.
This new reality was laid bare during the recent UN Security Council session, which exposed deep fractures between permanent and non-permanent members. The meeting made it clear that the UNSC has become an theater for two competing worldviews, demonstrating that mobilizing the world against Tehran is no longer a simple task.
Westerners reneged on their obligations under nuclear deal
A further argument for the illegitimacy of Western actions against Iran lies in their own flagrant violation of the nuclear deal. While the JCPOA significantly eased pressure on Iran, it was predicated on all parties honoring their declared commitments. Iran upheld its obligations and operated within the framework of the agreement. The US, however, reneged by unilaterally withdrawing and failing to meet any of its own commitments.
Subsequently, the European parties, despite symbolic gestures, took no effective action to ensure Tehran received the benefits of the accord. Iran even granted the European E3 a one-year grace period to compensate for Washington's withdrawal, which resulted only in the creation of the INSTEX mechanism—a channel that ultimately proved inoperable.
In response to this Western bad faith, Tehran therefore began to gradually scale back its own commitments to rectify the imbalance in the deal's implementation. Given this factual record, the West itself is the primary side to blame for the current crisis. Legal logic dictates that a party which has broken its vows cannot later invoke the authority of the very treaty it has rendered void.
This trajectory demonstrates that the push to reimpose sanctions is a direct consequence of Western perfidy and inaction, not a failure of Tehran's compliance. The West's own failure to honor the JCPOA leaves it with no legal standing to accuse Tehran. As Iran's Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi stated, "the snapback mechanism has no legal validity, is null and void, and must be revoked immediately."
It must be noted that the JCPOA is now effectively defunct. Having lost the ability to apply past levels of pressure, the Western powers are now struggling by any means necessary to keep the agreement on life support, solely to maintain a tool of leverage over Iran's nuclear program. However, with the deal invalidated by Western violations, Iran is no longer bound by its clauses and has no obligation to adhere to its terms.
Frequent Western accusations against Iran comes as the US encouraged the Israeli regime to attack Iran as Tehran was busy talking to Washington indirectly. It even directly got involved in the attacks and struck Iranian nuclear sites, something indicating that not only the US administration does not respect the nuclear agreement, but also it does not believe in a diplomatic path either. So, the recent claim by the White that the Islamic Republic has no will for a deal is more an attempt to fool the public opinion and cover up Washington's confrontational policies than a reality.
Slim enforceablity for international community
Though the US and its allies argue that all countries should join the regime of sanctions against Iran, the global conditions and the views of the countries has significantly changed compared to the time of the nuclear deal.
Russia and China have explicitly declared the snapback mechanism illegal, asserting they are under no legal obligation to enforce the sanctions imposed by the West. Furthermore, the West's campaign to rally global support for a policy of maximum pressure against Tehran has gained little traction. Many nations have not only refused to join this coalition but have also publicly voiced their opposition to the recent moves.
This trend signals that the West's traditional tools, from financial incentives to threats of isolation, have lost their former potency. Consequently, the activation of the snapback mechanism is largely a political and symbolic gesture, reflecting the West's diminishing influence and the shifting balance of power within an emerging multipolar world order. This realignment was similarly evident following the war in Ukraine, when numerous countries refused to join the anti-Russian sanctions. By gravitating towards emerging economic coalitions like BRICS, these nations have demonstrated a declining willingness to follow policy directives from Washington and Brussels.
The fierce dispute over triggering the snapback mechanism, followed by the failure of a subsequent draft resolution proposed by Moscow and Beijing, which was defeated by 9 votes against to 6 in favor, reveals more about the profound divisions within the Security Council than it does about the power of sanctions. When the very institution tasked with upholding international order is paralyzed by internal discord, how can it credibly claim to enforce binding obligations on other nations?
In fact, the recent UNSC vote was an indication of the growing East-West competition and confrontation. Through their clear opposition to the snapback, China and Russia have not only backed Tehran standing, but also utilized the opportunity to challenge the Western hegemony in the international organizations. On the other side, the non-permanent member states, which have usually been subjected to intense Western diplomatic pressure, have demonstrated a new global reality by adopting independent stances.
In essence, the West's failure to build a global consensus against Iran at the Security Council demonstrates that any attempt to violate Resolution 2231 has little chance of success. Therefore, the push to reimpose sanctions stems not from Iran's violations, but from political pressure and geopolitical competitions. This anti-Iranian step not only lacks legal legitimacy but will also dim the diplomatic atmosphere and deepen world distrust of Western policies.
