Snapback activation: Europe’s fundamental contradiction in its approach toward Iran

In an unlawful action, the European troika reactivated the snapback mechanism, reinstating United Nations sanctions on Iran after a ten-year suspension.

The snapback mechanism is part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 by Iran and six world powers: Russia, China, the UK, France, Germany, and the United States.

This development comes at a time when Europe has failed to meet even its minimum commitments under the deal, as European companies capitulated to U.S. pressure and European governments could not compensate for this submission.

This week, the European troika restored the snapback mechanism against Iran, which automatically reactivates previous UN Security Council resolutions on Iran. However, its practical implementation requires updates to domestic legislation by EU member states to enforce sanctions. This depends on the EU and the UK taking the necessary legal measures, though neither has yet disclosed details about the enforcement process.

According to Al Mayadeen, while UN Security Council resolutions are binding, compliance varies across states. China and Russia, for example, consider the activation of the snapback mechanism illegal and are therefore unlikely to follow it.

Europe’s anti-Iran stance raises fundamental questions about the basis and nature of this hostility, especially given Iran’s numerous efforts to stabilize relations with Europe.

Yet these countries persist in their hostility toward Iran. So, what is the true basis of Europe’s antagonism?

It has been seven years since the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal—a move that demonstrated the coercive nature of American policy. Europe expressed regret over Washington’s decision, but even under President Biden, it failed to correct America’s stance.

Meanwhile, European companies, fearing U.S. sanctions, violated their contracts with Iran. For instance, French company Total withdrew from its oil agreement with Iran, causing massive losses for both sides.

This shows that the United States has created crises not only for Iran but also for Europe. So why has Europe shifted from blaming the U.S. to punishing Iran—and why now?

Europe was unable to influence U.S. policy and thus redirected the pressure onto Iran. This happened at a time when tensions between European and American policies over the wars in Ukraine and Gaza were growing. Instead of narrowing the gap between Europe and Iran, the opposite occurred.

Meanwhile, the Israeli regime began its aggression against Iran, and Iran defended itself. Europe was expected either to stand by international law and UN resolutions or to adopt neutrality between the two sides. Instead, Europe stood alongside Israel.

There is no legal or political justification for this stance, especially as the Israeli regime continues its massacre of civilians in Gaza.

From Europe’s policies toward Israel on one hand, and toward Iran on the other, it is clear that political and economic factors, or even Israel’s centrality in Western strategic thinking, are not the sole or decisive reasons for Europe’s hostility toward Iran.