You need not be a friend of the Iranian government, and I am completely opposed to the clerical regime, to realise that activating the snapback mechanism and reimposing sanctions on Iran further pushes the world towards chaos and lawlessness. This state of affairs is perilous for the world as a whole, but it also poses a significant threat to major powers in the nuclear age. With a genocide raging in Gaza and a proxy war between Russia and the West continuing in Ukraine, reimposing sanctions on Iran is an act of total irresponsibility and the violation of international law.
Iran and the world reached a landmark nuclear agreement (JCPOA), according to which Iran massively reduced its peaceful, civilian nuclear activities and accepted IAEA inspections in return for the lifting of all sanctions. To strengthen its commitment to the nuclear agreement, Iran voluntarily joined the so-called “Additional Protocol”, which allows unannounced IAEA inspections of all nuclear sites. The agreement was unanimously endorsed by the UNSC Resolution 2231, lifting all the UN sanctions on Iran.
In numerous reports, the IAEA testified that Iran continued to abide by the terms of the agreement, even for more than a year after the Trump administration withdrew from the deal. The E3 also violated the deal as they did not honour its terms after the US withdrawal. Then we had the aggressive attack by Israel and the United States on Iranian nuclear sites in the middle of negotiations between Iran and the United States, even though US intelligence had testified that Iran had not weaponised its nuclear programme.
Reimposing sanctions on Iran, instead of condemning and punishing the United States and Israel for their aggressive, illegal attacks, is the height of folly and disregard for international law. This will further undermine international law, global peace and security and any trust in international agreements. There is still time to reverse this bullying decision.
Your critique of the JCPOA "snapback" as a push toward "chaos and lawlessness" is absolutely right. It perfectly exposes the hypocrisy at the heart of global governance. I agree totally with your assessment:
We live in a world where only the law of the jungle exists. The calling upon of International Law is clearly a selective tool, primarily serving the interests of the US and its allies. The JCPOA crisis proves this: The agreement was only broken after the US unilaterally withdrew and re-imposed sanctions, despite Iran's initial compliance. To punish Iran for its subsequent reactions—while ignoring the initial, aggressive breach—is the height of folly and moral bankruptcy.
Given this grim reality, the Middle East must discard the illusion of a fair world order and assert its own strength.
Iran needs to recognize its considerable strengths and work together with its Arab neighbours and Turkey to collectively forge a strategic balance of power against Israel. This grouping represents an unmatched resource pool: a population of 400 million and immense financial and demographic resources. It's no coincidence that Israel has worked so hard to ally with Arab states; it's a calculated move to secure financial and strategic depth. Iran needs to strategically align itself with the wealthy Persian Gulf states to create an economic and political bloc capable of challenging outside dominance and stabilizing the region on its own terms.
Continuing to push sanctions, especially amidst the current regional conflicts, is not only illegal but dangerously irresponsible. The path to stability lies not in relying on a flawed international system, but in the region finding its own strength through unity.
It's far too early to deliver a final conclusion on the snapback mechanism and its consequences for Iran. Many events, like the situation in Ukraine or tariffs on China, could occur that might influence the behavior of Russia and China.
Iran's "Look East" policy, a cornerstone of its foreign policy focused on strategic rapprochement with Moscow and Beijing, was based on a flawed premise. The limits of this relationship became clear during the 12-day war. Despite public declarations of support, neither Russia nor China offered Iran any meaningful assistance or deterrence. Their reserved stance made it clear that their strategic interests don't necessarily align with Tehran's when a direct conflict looms.
I'd argue that when push comes to shove, both countries will likely use Iran as a bargaining chip. I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are on this.
This whole article concentrates on Russia but China is the real power who should be watched. It is they who have the economic, military and political power to sustain Iran, and resist against both the US and Europe. Russia is a vocal but economic minnow in comparison.
Yes the focus of this Substack is on Russia and Iran, China will be less willing to completely obstruct the process. On the Iran nuclear file, China has typically followed Russia’s lead. Bilateral relations are a bit different. I am happy to expand on issues involving China in another post if that would be of interest.
I think it's important as China has the most incentive and the most capability to support Iran. Russia simply doesn't have the economic power that China has. Russia may well be the one taking the heat but I don't think they will be doing it in isolation or unsupported at all.
If China defies snapback passively or actively is also an important consideration in their strategic intent. By doing the latter they splinter the international system and point to a more assertive posture where Europe is treated as an afterthought.
But yeah. I thought it was a good article, but more exposition on China's likely moves would be good. I appreciate that's probably more speculative but could be interesting.
If China doesn't recognise snapback it's dead in the water, and they have a good legal basis for not recognising it.
Europeans can't just abuse the procedure willy nilly. They want to uphold none of their own obligations only to then try and exercise the benefits.
Iran has played a bit of a long game with this. Assumetrically they know they lacked political power, but by assiduously framing each and every escalation as legitimate under international law they've enabled China to now play this card and not make them look like charlatans.
The Europeans are going to learn a lesson. The sands of strategic power have shifted and Europe and America are far less important than they were when they signed the agreement.
With recession and fiscal crisis coming to Europe and America in the near future, there will be even less incentive on Iran to dance to their tune.
You need not be a friend of the Iranian government, and I am completely opposed to the clerical regime, to realise that activating the snapback mechanism and reimposing sanctions on Iran further pushes the world towards chaos and lawlessness. This state of affairs is perilous for the world as a whole, but it also poses a significant threat to major powers in the nuclear age. With a genocide raging in Gaza and a proxy war between Russia and the West continuing in Ukraine, reimposing sanctions on Iran is an act of total irresponsibility and the violation of international law.
Iran and the world reached a landmark nuclear agreement (JCPOA), according to which Iran massively reduced its peaceful, civilian nuclear activities and accepted IAEA inspections in return for the lifting of all sanctions. To strengthen its commitment to the nuclear agreement, Iran voluntarily joined the so-called “Additional Protocol”, which allows unannounced IAEA inspections of all nuclear sites. The agreement was unanimously endorsed by the UNSC Resolution 2231, lifting all the UN sanctions on Iran.
In numerous reports, the IAEA testified that Iran continued to abide by the terms of the agreement, even for more than a year after the Trump administration withdrew from the deal. The E3 also violated the deal as they did not honour its terms after the US withdrawal. Then we had the aggressive attack by Israel and the United States on Iranian nuclear sites in the middle of negotiations between Iran and the United States, even though US intelligence had testified that Iran had not weaponised its nuclear programme.
Reimposing sanctions on Iran, instead of condemning and punishing the United States and Israel for their aggressive, illegal attacks, is the height of folly and disregard for international law. This will further undermine international law, global peace and security and any trust in international agreements. There is still time to reverse this bullying decision.
Your critique of the JCPOA "snapback" as a push toward "chaos and lawlessness" is absolutely right. It perfectly exposes the hypocrisy at the heart of global governance. I agree totally with your assessment:
We live in a world where only the law of the jungle exists. The calling upon of International Law is clearly a selective tool, primarily serving the interests of the US and its allies. The JCPOA crisis proves this: The agreement was only broken after the US unilaterally withdrew and re-imposed sanctions, despite Iran's initial compliance. To punish Iran for its subsequent reactions—while ignoring the initial, aggressive breach—is the height of folly and moral bankruptcy.
Given this grim reality, the Middle East must discard the illusion of a fair world order and assert its own strength.
Iran needs to recognize its considerable strengths and work together with its Arab neighbours and Turkey to collectively forge a strategic balance of power against Israel. This grouping represents an unmatched resource pool: a population of 400 million and immense financial and demographic resources. It's no coincidence that Israel has worked so hard to ally with Arab states; it's a calculated move to secure financial and strategic depth. Iran needs to strategically align itself with the wealthy Persian Gulf states to create an economic and political bloc capable of challenging outside dominance and stabilizing the region on its own terms.
Continuing to push sanctions, especially amidst the current regional conflicts, is not only illegal but dangerously irresponsible. The path to stability lies not in relying on a flawed international system, but in the region finding its own strength through unity.
It's far too early to deliver a final conclusion on the snapback mechanism and its consequences for Iran. Many events, like the situation in Ukraine or tariffs on China, could occur that might influence the behavior of Russia and China.
Iran's "Look East" policy, a cornerstone of its foreign policy focused on strategic rapprochement with Moscow and Beijing, was based on a flawed premise. The limits of this relationship became clear during the 12-day war. Despite public declarations of support, neither Russia nor China offered Iran any meaningful assistance or deterrence. Their reserved stance made it clear that their strategic interests don't necessarily align with Tehran's when a direct conflict looms.
I'd argue that when push comes to shove, both countries will likely use Iran as a bargaining chip. I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are on this.
This whole article concentrates on Russia but China is the real power who should be watched. It is they who have the economic, military and political power to sustain Iran, and resist against both the US and Europe. Russia is a vocal but economic minnow in comparison.
Yes the focus of this Substack is on Russia and Iran, China will be less willing to completely obstruct the process. On the Iran nuclear file, China has typically followed Russia’s lead. Bilateral relations are a bit different. I am happy to expand on issues involving China in another post if that would be of interest.
I think it's important as China has the most incentive and the most capability to support Iran. Russia simply doesn't have the economic power that China has. Russia may well be the one taking the heat but I don't think they will be doing it in isolation or unsupported at all.
If China defies snapback passively or actively is also an important consideration in their strategic intent. By doing the latter they splinter the international system and point to a more assertive posture where Europe is treated as an afterthought.
But yeah. I thought it was a good article, but more exposition on China's likely moves would be good. I appreciate that's probably more speculative but could be interesting.
If China doesn't recognise snapback it's dead in the water, and they have a good legal basis for not recognising it.
Europeans can't just abuse the procedure willy nilly. They want to uphold none of their own obligations only to then try and exercise the benefits.
Iran has played a bit of a long game with this. Assumetrically they know they lacked political power, but by assiduously framing each and every escalation as legitimate under international law they've enabled China to now play this card and not make them look like charlatans.
The Europeans are going to learn a lesson. The sands of strategic power have shifted and Europe and America are far less important than they were when they signed the agreement.
With recession and fiscal crisis coming to Europe and America in the near future, there will be even less incentive on Iran to dance to their tune.