The latest round of discussions between Iran and the in Vienna once again underscored Tehran’s commitment to professional engagement. Reza Najafi, Iran’s permanent representative to the Agency, stressed that the framework for cooperation has been redefined on the basis of domestic and international law, with the aim of drafting a new guideline for future interactions. This approach reflects Iran’s dual stance: defending its legal rights while also seeking to maintain cooperation within a transparent framework.

However, tangible progress in the negotiations has been limited. Tehran has repeatedly warned that any political orientation by the Agency will block the path of cooperation. The Islamic Republic has reminded the international community that the sabotage actions of the United States and the Israeli regime must not influence the technical course of the case, insisting that the only valid references are parliamentary laws and international regulations.

Europe: From the Rhetoric of Diplomacy to Practical Contradiction

Parallel to Iran– talks, recent interactions with Europe carry significant weight. The three European countries and the European Union, while emphasizing the need to preserve diplomacy, have in practice shirked implementation of their own commitments. This gap between words and deeds has been the principal obstacle to dialogue from the very start.

The recent phone call between the foreign ministers of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom with Abbas Araghchi is a clear example of this contradiction: while they outwardly spoke of continuing diplomacy, they simultaneously raised the threat of invoking the snapback mechanism. Tehran has made it clear that a party in breach of the agreement has no legitimacy to employ this tool. Such a move constitutes an overt violation of both the spirit of the JCPOA and the principle of good faith in international relations.

Snapback Mechanism: Tool of Pressure or Hollow Threat?

Under UN Security Council Resolution 2231, the snapback mechanism was designed to restore sanctions against a party that violates the agreement. Yet Europe and the United States, while speaking of this mechanism, are themselves the main drivers of the nuclear crisis. To use this device against Iran, which continues its technical cooperation, amounts to nothing less than a breach of international law.

Now, with the end of August approaching, the key question is whether Europe and the United States will trigger this mechanism or instead seek to extend Resolution 2231 in order to maintain their pressure lever. Assessments suggest that the likelihood of an extension has risen slightly. In any case, the Europeans are unlikely to relinquish this instrument and will try to use it as leverage to maintain their foothold in the Iranian nuclear file. The role of the United States here may prove decisive: Washington could either refuse an extension to intensify pressure or side with Europe in an effort to manage the crisis.

Road Ahead: A Choice Between Reason and Escalation

Iran’s nuclear dossier stands at a crucial crossroads, where the decisions of the main players could shape the future of diplomacy. Iran has repeatedly demonstrated its readiness for constructive and transparent cooperation. Yet Europe and the United States must prove that they are committed to their international obligations. A continued course of threats and pressure will only deepen mistrust and narrow the possibility of constructive engagement.

The reality is that the future of this case depends less on the text of resolutions and more on the degree of political will and sincerity shown by the other parties. If Europe and the United States truly want to prevent new crises, they must abandon double standards and demonstrate diplomacy not just in words, but in action. Iran has shown it is ready for engagement on the basis of mutual respect. The moment of reckoning now rests with the Western parties: it is their turn to emerge from the test of rationality with credibility intact.