European Nations Shifted Stance on Iran Nuclear Deal: A Turnaround

In 2018, numerous European countries expressed their commitment to defending the Iran nuclear deal against President Trump’s viewpoint. By 2025, however, they reinstated the tough measures under their own flag that moves away from the Trump-led ‘highest pressure’ approach. European nations such as France, Germany, and the UK had denounced Trump’s decision to abandon the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), viewing it as a bulwark against a potential conflict in the Middle East. To maintain trade with Iran and circumvent American sanctions, they launched an exceptional financial instrument called INSTEX in 2018.

At that time, Europe projected a sense of establishing a unique strategic direction. Fast-forwarding to seven years, the scenario underwent a complete transformation. The same nations that were once severe critics of retracting the Iran deal have initiated the process to undo it. They have implemented the ‘snapback mechanism’, a feature embedded in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 in 2015 which seems to showcase their changed stance.

On a superficial level, the ‘snapback’ is a procedural clause allowing re-imposition of pre-2015 UN sanctions if a participant in the agreement alleges that Iran has violated its commitments. However, in reality, it has political implications of profound magnitude, sparking a much more convoluted series of actions.

The activation of the ‘snapback’ timer, a significant clause in Resolution 2231, commences a ticking countdown of thirty days. The UN Security Council must reach a unanimous agreement to keep the sanctions lifted, otherwise, the previous restrictions would automatically be reinstated, bypassing the requirement for a fresh vote or any vetoes. The sanctions reinstated under this mechanism are far from being merely symbolic; instead, they are stringent measures reinstating the era of intense pressure that Iran confronted more than ten years ago.

The sanctions reimposed include exhaustive items such as an arms embargo, prohibition on ballistic missile development, freezing of assets and travel restrictions imposed on Iranian banks, corporations, and officials. They bring about tremendous repercussions. For the European nations, it signifies putting an end to the few remaining open channels for business and diplomacy with Iran.

Consequently, Iran would face the return of an environment of global seclusion that it has gradually learned to circumvent through strategic associations with nations like Russia, China, and regional partners. The European nations showed a bold demeanour when President Trump violated the nuclear deal in 2018, with leaders like Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, and Theresa May openly denouncing Washington’s unilateral step.

The European nations introduced INSTEX, hoping it would enable European enterprises to continue trading with Iran, side-stepping American sanctions. However, it failed to fulfil its intended purpose. Utilizations were few and far between, and businesses tended to avoid INSTEX, transforming it into a mere illusion of intent. What was intended to prove Europe’s sovereign strength, instead illuminated its limitations.

Iran persevered and held onto the agreement for longer than anticipated, even when the accord began to crumble. Iran mainly upheld the agreed limitations, indicating that they wanted the deal to prevail. The augmentations made post-2019, such as enriching uranium beyond permitted parameters and decreasing inspectors’ access, were principally confined and largely symbolic. They were more of a communication of intentions rather than an outright heads-up to nuclear armament.

The European community chose to portray these actions as violations subject to retribution rather than signals for initiating a dialogue. The emphasis on the implementation of legal and pressure tactics instead of genuine diplomatic outreach means the salvaging of the deal becomes even more unlikely. As a result, instead of preserving the deal, the collapse has been expedited.

The assumption of office by Joe Biden in 2021 fostered a sense of relief in Europe. They hoped that the U.S. would revisit the nuclear agreement or at least provide more lee-way for Europe to reinitiate a dialogue with Tehran. Restarting negotiation talks in 2022, the West had steep demands which significantly exceeded nuclear stipulations.

A seismic shift was felt in the corridors of the UN when the term ‘snapback’ first resonated in August 2020. During this time, the Trump administration formally announced to the Security Council that Iran had failed to adhere to the nuclear deal and demanded the reimposition of past UN sanctions. The reaction from the UN was swift and embarrassing.

It’s intriguing to observe that in 2020, Europe had sided with the nations of Beijing and Moscow to resist Washington’s snapback implementation attempts. However, just five years later, the very same European capitals are now the ones initiating the process.

In Iranian circles, the European decision is viewed with subdued yet unmistakable frustration. They find it regrettable and unlawful, reinforcing their perception of Europe’s propensity to tow Washington’s line, irrespective of their claims towards establishing strategic autonomy. From the American side, the response was contrasting and accommodating.

Europe’s reliance on old sanction measures hearkens back to the early years of the 21st century when Tehran was isolated, and Western nations imposed stringent conditions. That period, however, no longer exists. Today’s world sees Iran with stronger international bonds, specifically with Moscow and Beijing. As a part of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Iran now has alternatives to the Western-led order.