Tehran — Russia’s envoy to the United Nations has rejected a push by France, Germany, and the UK to restore UN sanctions on Iran, arguing that the European effort to trigger the “snapback” provision under Resolution 2231 has no legal basis after years of Western noncompliance with the 2015 nuclear accord.
In a note circulated to the Security Council, the Russian mission characterized the E3 gambit as “illegitimate,” “ineffective,” and corrosive to diplomacy at a moment when practical channels with Tehran are already under strain. Moscow’s position turns on sequence and standing: the United States left the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018 and reimposed sweeping unilateral sanctions, after which Iran began incremental, reversible steps away from JCPOA limits. On that timeline, Russia argues, Europe’s resort to snapback amounts to rewriting the deal’s history rather than enforcing its terms.
The dispute centers on Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA and created a rapid mechanism to restore prior UN sanctions if a participant alleged “significant non-performance.” Russia’s view is that the E3 cannot credibly invoke a remedy designed for genuine noncompliance while disregarding the accord’s core bargain of sanctions relief for verifiable nuclear limits. Moscow also contends the Europeans have not exhausted dispute-resolution pathways that once kept technical differences from becoming political ruptures.
European officials say the move is about leverage, not symbolism. With sunsets tied to Resolution 2231 approaching, the E3 has signaled it is prepared to reimpose UN measures unless Iran restores access for inspectors and reins in enrichment. Supporters of that approach argue that a credible threat is the only remaining way to force negotiations back on track after years of drift and the collapse of parallel talks.
Russia counters that coercion will harden positions in Tehran, narrow the International Atomic Energy Agency’s room to operate, and complicate any path back to steady inspections. Diplomatically, Moscow warns, snapback would shred what remains of the JCPOA’s dispute-resolution machinery and make technical fixes hostage to political point-scoring. Economically, a revived UN sanctions regime would ripple through shipping, finance, and insurance, imposing costs not only on Iran but on a cluster of countries that have reorganized trade to reduce exposure to US secondary sanctions.
The stakes are broader than one file. For Russia, the snapback fight is also a test of whether Western capitals can accept a rules-based framework they no longer fully control, especially after the United States set aside its commitments. For Europe, the episode is about preserving some minimal deterrent against nuclear advances while the Security Council’s leverage still exists.
Next steps will turn on whether the E3 formally files a snapback notification and whether Council members coalesce around off-ramps that marry nuclear transparency to calibrated sanctions relief. Without that, diplomats on all sides privately expect a familiar cycle: legal brinkmanship, reciprocal escalations by Tehran, and further polarization at the IAEA and the Security Council.
According to Mehr News, Russia’s Permanent Mission to the UN lodged its objection in an official note to the Security Council on August 15, describing the E3’s snapback push as unlawful and harmful to diplomacy.
