Sanctions Reimposed on Iran 10 Years After Landmark Nuclear Deal

A decade after the international community forged a landmark agreement aimed at curbing its nuclear ambitions, Iran once again faces a sweeping array of economic and military sanctions. The reintroduction of these punitive measures, triggered by key European signatories to the original deal, marks a critical turning point, plunging an already volatile region into further uncertainty and raising profound questions about the future of nuclear non-proliferation. The sanctions reimposed on Iran are not merely a return to previous restrictions but signify a failure of diplomatic efforts that once promised a new era of engagement.

This comprehensive article will delve into the intricate history behind the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), explore the mechanisms of the “snapback” sanctions, detail their far-reaching economic and social consequences for Iran, and analyze the complex geopolitical ramifications for all stakeholders involved.

The Genesis of the JCPOA: A Decade Ago

To understand the current crisis, it is essential to revisit the origins of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. Signed in July 2015, the JCPOA was the culmination of years of intense diplomatic negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 group – the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) plus Germany, along with the European Union.

What Was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)?

The JCPOA was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program would be exclusively peaceful, preventing it from developing nuclear weapons. In exchange for significant limitations on its nuclear activities and enhanced international monitoring, Iran was promised comprehensive relief from international and multilateral sanctions, including those imposed by the UN Security Council, the United States, and the European Union.

Goals of the Deal: Curbing Nuclear Ambitions for Sanctions Relief

The primary goal of the JCPOA was to significantly extend Iran’s “breakout time” – the period it would theoretically take to produce enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon. This was achieved through several key provisions:

Uranium Enrichment: Iran agreed to reduce its centrifuges by two-thirds, enrich uranium only up to 3.67% purity (far below weapons-grade 90%), and keep its enriched uranium stockpile below 300 kg.
Heavy Water Reactor: The Arak heavy water reactor, a potential source of plutonium for a bomb, was to be redesigned and its spent fuel shipped out of the country.
Inspections and Monitoring: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was granted unprecedented access for inspections, including “snap” inspections to undeclared sites.
Sanctions Relief: Upon verification of Iran’s compliance, a vast array of sanctions targeting Iran’s oil exports, banking sector, trade, and other economic activities would be lifted.

At the time, the deal was hailed by many as a diplomatic triumph, a cornerstone of non-proliferation, and a potential pathway to improved relations between Iran and the West. The lifting of sanctions was expected to revitalize Iran’s economy and integrate it further into the global system.

The Unraveling: Why the Deal Collapsed

Despite initial compliance by Iran, the JCPOA began to unravel years after its signing, primarily due to a shift in US policy.

US Withdrawal from the JCPOA

In May 2018, the Trump administration announced its withdrawal from the JCPOA, arguing that the deal was fundamentally flawed, did not adequately address Iran’s ballistic missile program, or its regional destabilizing activities, and was not permanent enough. Following the withdrawal, the US unilaterally reimposed its own sanctions on Iran, adopting a “maximum pressure” campaign designed to choke off Iran’s oil exports and cripple its economy. This move was met with widespread international criticism, particularly from the European signatories who remained committed to the deal.

Iran’s Subsequent Steps to Reduce Compliance

Faced with the renewed US sanctions and the inability of European partners to fully compensate for the economic losses, Iran gradually began to scale back its commitments under the JCPOA starting in 2019. Tehran argued that it could not uphold its end of the bargain if other parties, particularly the US, were not doing so, and if it was not receiving the promised economic benefits. These steps included:

Increasing uranium enrichment levels: Exceeding the 3.67% limit to 20% and eventually 60% purity, significantly shortening its theoretical breakout time.
Accumulating larger stockpiles of enriched uranium: Surpassing the 300 kg limit.
Operating advanced centrifuges: Bringing online more efficient centrifuges that were prohibited under the deal.
Restricting IAEA inspections: Limiting access for inspectors to certain facilities and monitoring equipment, a key trigger for the recent snapback action.

European Efforts to Salvage the Deal

Throughout this period, the UK, France, and Germany (E3) consistently expressed their commitment to the JCPOA and sought to keep Iran within its framework. They attempted to create mechanisms, such as INSTEX (Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges), to facilitate legitimate trade with Iran and circumvent US sanctions. However, these efforts proved largely insufficient to offset the immense pressure of US sanctions, leaving Iran with little economic incentive to fully adhere to the deal.

Understanding the “Snapback” Mechanism

The current reintroduction of sanctions is not merely a US action but a multilateral one, initiated through a unique provision of the original nuclear deal and a corresponding UN Security Council resolution.

What is “Snapback”?

The “snapback” mechanism is a crucial provision embedded within UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA. It allows any participant state to the JCPOA to unilaterally trigger the re-imposition of all UN sanctions on Iran that were lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal. This mechanism was designed as a safeguard: if Iran significantly violated the terms of the agreement, the international community could quickly revert to the previous state of sanctions without needing a new Security Council vote, which could be vetoed by Russia or China.

Its Design within the JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution 2231

Under Resolution 2231, if a JCPOA participant believed Iran was in “significant non-performance” of its commitments, they could refer the issue to a Joint Commission. If the issue remained unresolved after 30 days, it could be referred to the UN Security Council. The Security Council would then have 30 days to vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions relief. If no such resolution was adopted within that timeframe, the UN sanctions would automatically “snap back” into place. Crucially, any Security Council member could not veto this process, preventing Russia or China from blocking the re-imposition of sanctions once initiated.

Who Triggered It and on What Grounds?

On this occasion, the sanctions reimposed on Iran were triggered by the UK, France, and Germany (the E3). Their decision came after years of expressing deep concern over Iran’s escalating nuclear activities and its increasing restrictions on IAEA monitoring. The specific grounds cited included:

Continued Nuclear Escalation: Iran’s steady accumulation of enriched uranium, enrichment to higher purities, and deployment of advanced centrifuges, all in violation of JCPOA limits.
Lack of Co-operation with IAEA: Most critically, Iran’s suspension of inspections of its nuclear facilities, which are a legal obligation under the terms of the 2015 deal, and its refusal to fully cooperate with the IAEA on outstanding safeguard issues. This directly limited the international community’s ability to verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s program.

The Role of the United States in the Snapback Process

While the US unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, its previous administration made an attempt to trigger the snapback mechanism in 2020, arguing that it remained a “participant state” to Resolution 2231. This move was widely rejected by most other UN Security Council members, including the E3, Russia, and China, who argued that having withdrawn from the JCPOA, the US no longer had the legal standing to invoke its provisions.

However, the current snapback, initiated by the E3, is viewed as legally sound by most international observers, even if politically controversial. The European nations, as original signatories and current participants in the JCPOA, unequivocally retain the right to activate this mechanism.

The Reimposed Sanctions: A Return to Strictures

The activation of the snapback mechanism means that all UN sanctions on Iran that were lifted under the JCPOA have now been reinstated. These are comprehensive measures designed to isolate Iran economically and militarily.

Specific Economic Sanctions

The reimposed UN economic sanctions are far-reaching and will have a significant impact on Iran’s already struggling economy. They include:

Oil Exports: Restrictions on Iran’s ability to sell crude oil, which is the lifeblood of its economy. This will make it harder for Iran to find buyers and transport its oil, severely limiting its revenue.
Banking and Financial Transactions: Further limitations on Iran’s access to the international financial system, making it difficult for Iranian banks to conduct transactions with foreign entities and for Iran to repatriate funds. This includes restrictions on financial messaging services like SWIFT.
Trade Restrictions: Embargoes on the transfer of goods, services, and technology that could be used in Iran’s nuclear or ballistic missile programs. This affects various sectors, from industrial machinery to specialized components.
Asset Freezes: Freezing of assets belonging to individuals and entities associated with Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.
Shipping and Ports: Restrictions on Iranian shipping companies and port operations, further isolating the country from global trade routes.

These measures complement existing unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States, creating an even more restrictive environment for Iran’s economy.

Military Sanctions

In addition to economic restrictions, the snapback mechanism also reinstates significant military sanctions:

Arms Embargo: A ban on Iran importing or exporting conventional arms, including tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles, and missile systems. This impacts Iran’s ability to modernize its military and its capacity to supply proxy groups.
Missile Technology Restrictions: Prohibitions on Iran developing ballistic missile technology capable of delivering nuclear weapons. This is a major concern for regional stability.
Dual-Use Goods: Restrictions on the transfer of goods and technology that could have both civilian and military applications, further hindering Iran’s technological advancement in sensitive areas.

These military sanctions are particularly significant as they remove the sunset clauses that were part of the original JCPOA, which would have seen the conventional arms embargo expire.

Impact on Iran’s Access to International Markets

The cumulative effect of these sanctions reimposed on Iran is a severe constriction of its access to international markets. Foreign companies and banks will be extremely reluctant to do business with Iran for fear of secondary sanctions from the US or reputational damage, even if their home countries officially oppose the snapback. This isolation will exacerbate Iran’s economic woes, limit its ability to attract foreign investment, and hinder its capacity to import essential goods.

Iran’s Nuclear Program: Escalation and Concerns

The primary justification for the snapback sanctions is Iran’s perceived escalation of its nuclear program beyond JCPOA limits and its reduced cooperation with international monitors.

Details of Iran’s “Continued Nuclear Escalation”

Since the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, Iran has progressively taken steps to breach the deal’s restrictions. These include:

Increased Enrichment Purity: Enriching uranium to 20% and then to 60% purity, levels far higher than the 3.67% allowed by the JCPOA and technically only a short step away from weapons-grade 90%.
Expanded Uranium Stockpiles: Accumulating hundreds of kilograms of enriched uranium, significantly exceeding the 300 kg limit.
Advanced Centrifuge Deployment: Installing and operating cascades of advanced IR-2m, IR-4, and IR-6 centrifuges, which are much more efficient than the IR-1 centrifuges permitted under the deal.
Production of Uranium Metal: Engaging in research and production of uranium metal, a material that could be used in the core of a nuclear weapon, which was explicitly prohibited by the JCPOA.

These actions have significantly reduced Iran’s “breakout time,” leading to heightened international alarm.

Concerns About Breakout Time for Nuclear Weapons

The term “breakout time” refers to the theoretical amount of time Iran would need to produce enough weapons-grade fissile material for a single nuclear weapon, assuming it decided to do so. Under the JCPOA, this time was estimated to be about one year. However, with Iran’s recent escalations, experts now estimate that this breakout time has dramatically shrunk, potentially to a matter of weeks or even days, intensifying fears of proliferation.

IAEA Monitoring Restrictions and Their Implications

A critical aspect of Iran’s non-compliance has been its increasing restrictions on the IAEA’s ability to monitor its nuclear facilities. Iran has suspended the application of the Additional Protocol, which allowed for more intrusive “snap” inspections, and has limited the IAEA’s access to surveillance equipment and data at various sites. This lack of transparency has made it increasingly difficult for the IAEA to provide assurances about the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program and to detect any undeclared nuclear activities. The E3 explicitly cited these restrictions as a direct trigger for the snapback.

Alleged Bombings of Iranian Nuclear Sites and Military Bases

Further complicating the situation, the official source mentions that Iran suspended inspections after Israel and the US allegedly bombed several of its nuclear sites and military bases in June. While details remain scarce and official confirmations are limited, such actions, if confirmed, would represent a significant escalation of covert operations and military tensions, potentially serving as a direct provocation for Iran’s nuclear advancements and its decision to restrict inspections. This adds another layer of complexity to Iran’s justifications for its actions and the broader regional security dynamic.

Domestic Impact: A Nation Under Pressure

The re-imposition of sweeping UN sanctions will undoubtedly compound the severe economic and social challenges already facing the Iranian populace.

Economic Hardship: Inflation, Unemployment, Currency Devaluation

Even before the latest UN sanctions, Iran’s economy was reeling from years of US “maximum pressure” sanctions, mismanagement, and the global economic fallout from various crises. The new UN sanctions will exacerbate these issues:

Soaring Inflation: Prices for essential goods, including food and medicine, are expected to skyrocket further, eroding the purchasing power of ordinary citizens.
Rising Unemployment: Key industries, particularly the oil and gas sector, will face increased difficulties, leading to job losses and reduced economic opportunities.
Currency Devaluation: The Iranian Rial has already experienced significant depreciation, and the new sanctions are likely to trigger further drops in its value, making imports more expensive and fueling inflation.
Reduced Oil Revenue: The ability to sell oil, Iran’s primary source of foreign currency, will be severely curtailed, impacting government budgets and social welfare programs.

The economic hardship translates directly into profound social consequences, as noted by competitors. Ordinary Iranians are increasingly finding themselves priced out of basic necessities:

Food Insecurity: The rising cost of food means that many families struggle to afford adequate nutrition, leading to increased hunger and malnutrition, particularly among vulnerable populations.
Poverty: The middle class is shrinking, and poverty rates are on the rise, pushing more people into destitution.
Lack of Access to Medicine: While humanitarian goods are technically exempt from sanctions, banking restrictions and the reluctance of international suppliers often make it difficult for Iran to import essential medicines and medical equipment, impacting public health.
Growing Anxiety: The constant economic pressure, coupled with political uncertainty and regional tensions, creates a pervasive sense of anxiety and hopelessness among the population. Public discontent and protests have become more frequent in recent years.

Humanitarian Concerns

While sanctions are often intended to target regimes, their impact disproportionately falls on the civilian population. The re-imposition of UN sanctions, particularly those affecting trade and finance, raises significant humanitarian concerns. The ability to import food, medicine, and other essential humanitarian goods, even if technically permitted, can be severely hampered by the chilling effect on banks and shipping companies unwilling to risk penalties.

Political Stability and Public Sentiment

The deteriorating economic situation and widespread social discontent pose a significant challenge to the Iranian government’s legitimacy and political stability. While the government often blames external enemies for the country’s woes, public frustration over corruption and mismanagement is also palpable. The reimposition of sanctions could further fuel anti-government sentiment, potentially leading to increased unrest.

Executions Surge in 2025

As highlighted by competitor content, there has been a concerning surge in executions in Iran in 2025. This grim statistic, often linked to political repression and social control, could be a symptom of the regime’s heightened internal pressure and efforts to maintain order amidst growing discontent and economic strain.

Iran’s Official Response and Future Considerations

Iran has vehemently condemned the reimposition of sanctions, viewing them as unjust and illegal. The nation now faces a critical juncture, weighing its response between confrontation and diplomacy.

President Pezeshkian’s Stance: “Unfair, Unjust, and Illegal”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has publicly denounced the reinstated sanctions, describing them as “unfair, unjust, and illegal.” He has reiterated Iran’s consistent position that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons, asserting that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, such as energy generation and medical applications. This stance aims to delegitimize the international action and rally domestic support against what Tehran perceives as Western aggression.

Weighing Options: Confrontation vs. Diplomacy

The Iranian leadership is now faced with difficult choices. The reimposed sanctions demand a strategic response, which could lean towards:

Confrontation: This might involve further accelerating its nuclear program, withdrawing from more international agreements, or increasing support for regional proxy groups, potentially leading to military escalation.
Diplomacy: Alternatively, Iran could signal a willingness to return to negotiations, perhaps under new terms, to seek a pathway for sanctions relief. However, past experiences and deep mistrust make this a challenging path.

Threats of Withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

A significant threat articulated by some Iranian officials, and noted by competitor analysis, is the possibility of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT is a cornerstone of global nuclear security, obligating non-nuclear-weapon states not to acquire nuclear weapons in exchange for access to peaceful nuclear technology. A withdrawal from the NPT would be an unprecedented step, signaling Iran’s complete disengagement from international nuclear safeguards and dramatically escalating proliferation concerns. It would likely lead to even more severe international isolation and potentially military action.

Warnings Against Military Attacks

Tehran has also issued stern warnings against any military attack on its territory or nuclear facilities. Given the alleged bombings in June, Iran’s rhetoric underscores its readiness to defend itself and retaliate against any perceived aggression. Such warnings highlight the extremely high stakes and the potential for miscalculation in the region.

Tehran Maintains “Snapback” Shouldn’t Have Happened

Iran consistently argues that the snapback mechanism should not have been triggered. Its position is that the E3 nations, by not fully protecting Iran from US sanctions, effectively failed to uphold their end of the JCPOA. Therefore, Iran’s reduction of its commitments was a “remedial measure” justified under the deal, not a “significant non-performance” that warrants snapback. This legal and political argument forms the basis of its objection to the legitimacy of the reimposed sanctions.

International Reactions and Geopolitical Implications

The reimposition of sanctions reimposed on Iran has elicited a range of reactions from key international players, each with their own interests and concerns.

European Stance (UK, France, Germany) and Their Motivations

The E3 nations – the UK, France, and Germany – have expressed regret at having to trigger the snapback, emphasizing that their action was a last resort. Their primary motivation is to uphold the global non-proliferation regime and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. They view Iran’s continued nuclear escalation and restrictions on IAEA monitoring as a direct threat to international peace and security. While they remain committed to the JCPOA’s original goals, they believe Iran’s actions left them with no alternative but to use the built-in safeguard mechanism. They also hope that the pressure of renewed sanctions will compel Iran to return to full compliance and meaningful negotiations.

US Position and Long-Standing Tensions

The United States, despite not officially triggering the snapback, has largely welcomed the re-imposition of UN sanctions. The current US administration has maintained a firm stance against Iran’s nuclear program and its regional activities, albeit with a stated preference for diplomatic solutions over military confrontation. The US views the snapback as validation of its concerns about Iran’s behavior and a necessary step to increase pressure on Tehran. The move further entrenches the long-standing tensions between Washington and Tehran, which have deep historical roots stemming from the 1979 revolution, hostage crisis, and decades of mutual distrust.

Reactions from Russia and China

Russia and China, both permanent members of the UN Security Council and original signatories to the JCPOA, have consistently opposed the snapback mechanism, particularly when the US attempted to trigger it. They argue that such actions undermine multilateralism and complicate efforts to resolve the nuclear issue diplomatically. They have historically maintained closer economic and political ties with Iran and tend to be critical of Western-led pressure campaigns. While they may formally recognize the legal validity of the E3’s snapback given their JCPOA participation, they are likely to express strong political disapproval and may seek to find ways to mitigate the impact of sanctions on their own relations with Iran.

Concerns from Regional Players, Particularly Israel

Regional players, especially Israel, have long viewed Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat. Israel has consistently advocated for a tougher stance against Iran and has been a vocal critic of the JCPOA, arguing it did not go far enough to dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The reimposition of sanctions is likely welcomed by Israel, but its primary concern remains Iran’s capacity for nuclear weaponization, irrespective of sanction regimes. Other Gulf Arab states also share concerns about Iran’s regional influence and ballistic missile program, and will be watching developments closely.

Impact on Regional Stability and Global Non-Proliferation Efforts

The re-imposition of sanctions carries significant geopolitical implications:

Increased Regional Instability: The heightened pressure on Iran could lead to further proxy conflicts, cyber warfare, or direct confrontations in the Middle East.
Setback for Non-Proliferation: The failure of the JCPOA and the return to a sanctions regime could be seen as a blow to international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation through diplomacy. It might encourage other states to question the reliability of international agreements.
Shift in Alliances: The situation could further solidify alliances or create new diplomatic alignments in the region and globally.

The Path Forward: Diplomacy or Further Confrontation?

The reimposition of UN sanctions places the international community and Iran at a critical crossroads. The path ahead is fraught with challenges, with no easy solutions.

Challenges to De-escalation

Several factors make de-escalation difficult:

Deep Mistrust: Decades of animosity, the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, and Iran’s subsequent nuclear escalations have created profound mistrust on all sides.
Lack of Incentives: Iran perceives the sanctions as unjust and an infringement on its sovereignty, providing little incentive for it to fully comply without significant concessions.
Domestic Politics: Hardliners in both Iran and Western nations may resist compromise, preferring a confrontational approach.
Regional Dynamics: The involvement of multiple regional actors with conflicting interests complicates any diplomatic effort.

Prospects for Renewed Negotiations

Despite the current bleak outlook, some hope for renewed negotiations persists. The E3, while triggering snapback, have also signaled their openness to diplomacy. Any future talks would likely need to address not only Iran’s nuclear program but also its ballistic missile capabilities and regional activities, which were not fully covered by the original JCPOA. Finding a framework that satisfies all parties, particularly Iran’s demand for full sanctions relief and the West’s demand for verifiable, permanent nuclear constraints, will be immensely challenging.

Potential for Further Escalation

Without a clear diplomatic off-ramp, the potential for further escalation is high. This could manifest in:

Iran further accelerating its nuclear program: Moving closer to weapons-grade enrichment or withdrawing from the NPT.
Increased regional tensions: More proxy conflicts, attacks on shipping, or direct military confrontations.
Cyber warfare: An intensified cyber conflict between Iran and its adversaries.

The Role of International Mediation

The current impasse highlights the need for robust international mediation. Countries or international bodies not directly involved in the current confrontation could play a crucial role in facilitating dialogue, identifying common ground, and building confidence between the parties. However, the deep divisions within the UN Security Council and the strong positions of key players make such mediation difficult.

Conclusion

The sanctions reimposed on Iran a decade after the landmark nuclear deal represent a significant setback for international diplomacy and nuclear non-proliferation. Driven by Iran’s escalating nuclear activities and restricted cooperation with international monitors, the “snapback” mechanism has reinstated sweeping economic and military restrictions, further isolating a nation already struggling under severe pressure.

For Iran, the consequences are dire, promising deeper economic hardship, increased social anxiety, and potentially heightened internal instability. For the international community, the situation underscores the fragility of complex diplomatic agreements and the persistent challenges of managing nuclear proliferation in a volatile region. As the world watches, the critical question remains: will this renewed pressure compel Iran back to the negotiating table, or will it push the nation towards further defiance, risking a perilous escalation in an already tense Middle East? The path forward demands careful diplomacy, strategic restraint, and a clear vision for preventing a nuclear crisis, even as the shadows of past failures lengthen.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What are “snapback” sanctions?

“Snapback” sanctions refer to a mechanism within UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (which endorsed the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, JCPOA) that allows any participant state to the JCPOA to unilaterally trigger the re-imposition of all UN sanctions on Iran that were lifted under the deal. This happens automatically if a resolution to continue sanctions relief is not passed within 30 days of the mechanism being triggered, bypassing potential vetoes.

Why were sanctions reimposed on Iran?

Sanctions were reimposed on Iran primarily because the UK, France, and Germany (the E3 nations) accused Iran of “continued nuclear escalation” and a “lack of co-operation” with international nuclear inspectors. Iran had significantly breached the JCPOA limits on uranium enrichment, stockpile size, and advanced centrifuge use, and had restricted the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) monitoring access.

What is the JCPOA?

The JCPOA, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, is the official name for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. It was an agreement between Iran and the P5+1 group (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany, plus the EU) aimed at ensuring Iran’s nuclear program remained peaceful. In exchange for strict limitations and monitoring of its nuclear activities, Iran received comprehensive relief from international sanctions.

What is the current state of Iran’s nuclear program?

Iran’s nuclear program has significantly expanded beyond the limits set by the JCPOA since the US withdrew from the deal in 2018. Iran is enriching uranium to higher purities (up to 60%), has accumulated larger stockpiles of enriched uranium, and is using advanced centrifuges. It has also restricted IAEA monitoring, raising international concerns about its “breakout time” – the time needed to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon.

How do the reimposed sanctions affect ordinary Iranians?

The reimposed sanctions are expected to severely worsen Iran’s economy, which is already struggling under existing US sanctions and internal mismanagement. This will likely lead to soaring inflation, higher unemployment, further currency devaluation, and increased poverty. Ordinary Iranians will face greater difficulty affording basic necessities like food and medicine, leading to increased social anxiety and hardship.

Who triggered the snapback mechanism?

The snapback mechanism was triggered by the UK, France, and Germany (the E3 nations), who are signatories to the JCPOA. The United States, which withdrew from the deal in 2018, had previously attempted to trigger snapback but was largely rejected by other UN Security Council members who argued it lacked the legal standing to do so.

Can the nuclear deal be revived?

Reviving the nuclear deal is highly challenging due to deep mistrust and entrenched positions on all sides. While some parties, including the E3, have expressed openness to diplomacy, any future negotiations would likely need to address not only Iran’s nuclear program but also its ballistic missile capabilities and regional activities. Iran would also demand full sanctions relief, while Western nations would seek verifiable and durable nuclear constraints.

Menu

Sanctions reimposed on Iran 10 years after landmark nuclear deal

In This Article