Recent diplomatic efforts to avert the reimposition of UN sanctions on Iran have stalled, with European and Iranian diplomats failing to reach an agreement during talks in Geneva yesterday (August 26). The setback comes days before a critical deadline for Europe to trigger the “snapback mechanism” of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The Geneva talks and immediate reactions
The meeting in Geneva, attended by representatives from Britain, France and Germany (the E3) along with Iran, ended without a breakthrough. Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran warned Europe’s top three powers that reimposing UN sanctions would carry consequences, while repeating its position that they have no right to trigger the snapback mechanism.
Both sides, however, indicated that nuclear talks would continue. Iran’s deputy foreign minister Kazem Gharibabadi stressed the country’s commitment to diplomacy and urged the Europeans to allow “time and space” for dialogue. Some European officials voiced scepticism, questioning whether Iran was serious about compromise or simply delaying.
The threat of snapback sanctions
The E3 members have warned they may activate the snapback mechanism, which would bring back the UN sanctions lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal. It could result in an embargo on conventional arms, restrictions on ballistic missile development, a freeze on Iranian assets and travel bans. Europe seems clearly unhappy about Iran’s resistance to meet its commitments, especially the failure to answer IAEA’s queries about undeclared nuclear activity that hinted at weapons development. Iran’s decision to end all cooperation with inspectors after the June bombing of its nuclear facilities has left the international community largely in the dark about its programme.
European conditions for delaying snapback
Earlier this year, the E3 and the United States agreed to give Iran until the end of August to meet several conditions. These included resuming negotiations with Washington, allowing inspectors access to its nuclear sites, and accounting for over 400kg of highly enriched uranium.
Europe faces two pressures to act quickly. The snapback power itself expires on October 18. In addition, the Europeans prefer to trigger the process during South Korea’s presidency of the UN Security Council in September, to avoid possible procedural delays once Russia assumes the presidency in October. The snapback mechanism involves a 30-day notification period during which a resolution to continue sanctions relief would have to be adopted. The United States, Britain and France would almost certainly veto such a resolution, ensuring sanctions are automatically restored.
Iran’s stance and counter-arguments
Iran’s overriding goal in the talks is to prevent the return of UN sanctions. While it insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, the country has enriched uranium to 60 per cent purity, only a short step from weapons-grade levels of 90 per cent and well beyond the 3.67 per cent cap set by the 2015 deal.
Tehran argues that the Europeans lack the legal authority to invoke snapback because the United States withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and Europe failed to uphold its commitments thereafter. Iran has removed much of the IAEA’s monitoring equipment since 2022 and has barred some senior inspectors. It has threatened a “harsh response” to snapback, including possible withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has ruled out direct talks with the United States, declaring that Iran “cannot be brought to its knees.” Yet Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has left open the possibility of indirect negotiations through a mediator, provided Washington pledges not to launch military strikes during discussions. Tehran has welcomed support from Russia, as President Vladimir Putin has defended its right to enrichment.
The impact of the June bombings and inspection developments
Tensions rose sharply after Israel and the United States launched attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June. Over 12 days of conflict, enrichment plants and related infrastructure were damaged, with American forces even employing bunker-buster bombs. Iran halted all cooperation with the IAEA, citing safety concerns for inspectors.
The extent of the damage to key sites at Natanz, Fordow and Esfahan remains unclear, as does the fate of the 400kg of highly enriched uranium that Iran had stockpiled before the strikes. Some analysts believe Tehran moved the material beforehand. While President Donald Trump boasted that Iran’s programme had been “obliterated,” nuclear experts argue the reality is more complex. Considerable damage was likely inflicted but the programme was not destroyed.
The bombings appear to have bolstered Iran’s hardliners, who now see less reason to compromise. Yet in a limited sign of progress, international inspectors have recently returned to Iran for the first time since the June war. An agreement on access is expected, although inspections will initially be confined to facilities untouched by the strikes. Some experts suggest that granting access to damaged enrichment sites would represent real progress, even if Iran continues to evade questions about past undeclared activity. Iran, meanwhile, insists that the destruction of facilities requires a new, more restrictive inspection plan.
The Role of Russia and China
Russia and China, both original parties to the JCPOA, have sided with Iran and are working to prevent snapback. Moscow has submitted a draft resolution to extend the mechanism’s expiry date until next spring, with Beijing’s support. The proposal also calls for a six-month extendable deadline before sanctions are automatically restored.
While neither Russia nor China can veto a European decision to trigger snapback, they can delay proceedings through procedural means. This possibility has worried European diplomats, who wish to act while conditions at the Security Council are more favourable. Iran is coordinating with both powers to blunt the impact of any future sanctions.
Internal Iranian dynamics and future outlook
Iran’s leadership is divided. Pragmatists favour cooperation with international bodies and a negotiated solution, while hardliners, strengthened by the June bombings, prefer defiance. Observers warn that restoring sanctions may not significantly alter Iran’s economic position or encourage greater transparency, but it could heighten tensions further.
Some analysts believe the most likely outcome is that the deadline will be extended once again. If sanctions are triggered, there may be a brief opportunity for diplomacy during the 30-day window before they take effect, perhaps at the UN General Assembly’s high-level meetings in September. Yet the risks are considerable. Failure to reach an agreement could see Iran abandon the Non-Proliferation Treaty altogether and might trigger new military action from Israel or the United States.