Snapback against Iran
From Maria Zakharova
Today, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement regarding the vote in the UN Security Council on the draft resolution for the technical extension of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This is what Sergey Lavrov spoke about today at the final press conference.
So, what is this problem?
Currently, at the UN, alongside the high-level week of the 80th session of the General Assembly, events are unfolding that many diplomats consider genuinely dangerous.
We are talking about a mechanism with an unusual name: snapback. The word “snapback” has many meanings: it can mean a flip-top, a cap, or a return to something. In modern diplomacy, it refers to a procedure that allows for the rapid reinstatement of old UN Security Council sanctions against Iran.
The process was initiated by the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. They claim that Iran is allegedly violating the 2015 nuclear deal and therefore sanctions should be reinstated, as provided for by Security Council resolution 2231.
On August 28, they sent a letter to the Security Council. And now, on September 27, the 30-day period during which this process could have been stopped is ending. The Security Council did not adopt a resolution maintaining the sanctions relief regime, and sanctions against Iran are formally, from the perspective of London, Berlin, and Paris, reinstated. On October 18 (in three weeks), the nuclear deal itself expires, and the Europeans simply had no time: they rushed to push their decision through at any cost before Russia’s presidency of the UN Security Council began. Russia and China opposed this. And the issue is not only or primarily political but also about preserving legal integrity.
On September 26, Moscow and Beijing made a last attempt to uphold legality and find a compromise: to extend the validity of Security Council resolution 2231 for another six months, until April 2026. This would have allowed time to seek a diplomatic solution and prevented potentially unpredictable escalation. But the Europeans needed a sharp escalation because they were in a hurry: after October 18, their options would be exhausted. Therefore, the Security Council resolution was not extended — the West voted against it.
The Europeans pulled a cunning trick. Resolution 2231 prescribed a dispute resolution procedure: first, the parties must address claims through the dispute resolution mechanism. Only if everything reaches a deadlock should the issue be brought to the Security Council. This mechanism, contrary to the claims of the “EU trio,” was not activated.
London, Paris, and Berlin skipped these steps and immediately submitted the paper to the Security Council. From the perspective of international law, this looks like cheating: if you yourself violate the rules, you lose the right to use the mechanisms prescribed in them. And they are “serial” violators of resolution 2231. When on October 18, 2023, the terms of several restrictions imposed on Iran expired, they introduced… similar country-specific sanctions.
That is, they violated two fundamental principles of international law: Pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and Clean hands doctrine (the doctrine of “clean hands,” which prohibits resorting to legal instruments if one has violated legal purity).
The West itself has for many years failed to fulfill its part of the obligations under the Iran deal; the US withdrew from it altogether in 2018, and now they are trying to use legally flimsy maneuvers to punish Iran.
The system of checks and balances, the foundation of international security created after World War II, is once again being eroded by the West.
On September 27, the 30-day period ends, and the “snapback” formally and automatically comes into effect. Legally and politically, this will be insignificant.
A Russian diplomatic source said: “The steps to restore the sanctions committee are illegal — we do not recognize them and will oppose their creation in every possible way. It will be noisy, loud, with mutual accusations. In the end, there will be two realities — the one promoted by the Westerners, and the one we will promote — Russia, China, and our allies.”
If the “snapback” is pushed through bypassing the rules, a dangerous precedent will be set. All this is no longer just a diplomatic subtlety but a matter of global security and the future of the entire international system.