Iran-IAEA Agreement at Risk: Snapback Mechanism Activation Could Derail Progress

In a recent interview, Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s Deputy Minister for Legal and International Affairs, discussed the implications of the recent UN Security Council vote regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This vote, conducted under Resolution 2231, highlighted a lack of consensus, with four countries supporting it, two abstaining, and nine opposing. Gharibabadi’s insights provide a significant perspective on Iran’s diplomatic stance and the ongoing tensions surrounding the JCPOA.

Gharibabadi emphasized that the three European nations, along with the European Union, have consistently failed to fulfill their obligations under the JCPOA since the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018. He stated, “These countries now claim Iran has not complied with its commitments and, using this pretext, have triggered the illegal snapback mechanism.”

He elaborated on Iran’s diplomatic efforts to counter this move, asserting that Tehran has consistently acted with rationality and responsibility, pursuing diplomacy with integrity. Gharibabadi pointed to a recent understanding reached between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Cairo, as well as a reasonable proposal put forth by Iran’s foreign minister to the European states, which was even recognized by the French president as reasonable. However, he lamented that this proposal was dismissed by the Europeans without adequate justification.

Moreover, Gharibabadi refuted claims suggesting that Iran’s foreign minister lacked authority in these negotiations, insisting that the minister operates with the full backing of the Iranian Establishment. He remarked that Europe’s actions not only undermine diplomatic efforts but also indicate a strong alignment with America’s unilateral policies.

“Iran condemns this illegal action and calls on the international community to reject and deny legitimacy to it,” he stated, underlining his country’s firm stance against the reimposition of sanctions.

Concerns Over UN Sanctions

Addressing the recent actions by the three European states to reinstate terminated UN sanctions, Gharibabadi warned that unless a significant diplomatic development occurs within the next six to seven days, these sanctions are set to be reactivated shortly. He remarked:

• UN sanctions should not be dismissed: While he acknowledged the seriousness of UN sanctions, he clarified that they are not as severe as the unilateral sanctions Iran has faced historically.
• Psychological warfare: Gharibabadi cautioned against the psychological impact of such sanctions, urging economic experts to provide clear analyses to mitigate public anxiety.

He expressed that the reinstatement of UN sanctions would not significantly alter Iran’s existing sanctions landscape. However, he cautioned that falling into the psychological warfare orchestrated by Western nations and the US would be detrimental.

Impact on Iran-IAEA Agreement

Gharibabadi also highlighted the potential fallout from the reimposition of UN sanctions on the recent agreement between Iran and the IAEA. He warned that if sanctions are reinstated by September 27, 2025, the Cairo agreement would face suspension. His comments included:

• Urgency for diplomacy: He stressed the need for immediate diplomatic efforts to avert the return of sanctions.
• Consequences of hostile actions: Gharibabadi noted that any hostile actions against Iran, including the reinstatement of sanctions or the snapback mechanism, would justify the cessation of the agreement with the IAEA.

He concluded by stating that Iran is actively evaluating its next steps in response to these developments, with decisions being made at a senior policymaking level. Gharibabadi reassured that Iran will respond proportionately to any hostile actions it faces.

As the UN Security Council prepares to vote on the reinstatement of sanctions that were lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal, it is essential to consider the broader implications of this conflict. Britain, France, and Germany are advocating for the activation of the snapback mechanism, accusing Iran of non-compliance with its commitments. However, Iran argues that the European nations cannot invoke this mechanism, given that they were the first to violate the deal by failing to compensate for the US withdrawal.

Ultimately, the situation remains complex, with Iran maintaining its position that any actions taken against it will be met with appropriate responses. The outcome of this diplomatic saga and the potential reimposition of sanctions will significantly shape the future of Iran’s nuclear commitments and its relations with the international community.

In summary, Gharibabadi’s remarks encapsulate the intricate dynamics of international diplomacy surrounding the JCPOA and underscore the critical nature of ongoing negotiations and their potential impact on regional stability.