On Friday evening, September 26, the UN Security Council rejected a resolution proposed by Russia and China to postpone for six months the reimposition of international sanctions against Iran. The resolution failed with 9 votes against, 4 in favor, and 2 abstentions. If it had passed, the so-called “snapback” mechanism would have been suspended for six months. But the United States, France, and the United Kingdom opposed it, effectively ensuring the automatic reinstatement of all UN sanctions against Iran.
As a result, a set of previous resolutions will once again come into effect: Resolution 1696 (2006) demanding suspension of enrichment; Resolution 1737 (2006) imposing initial sanctions; Resolution 1747 (2007) expanding restrictions; Resolution 1803 (2008) introducing banking and travel bans; Resolution 1835 (2008) reiterating restrictions; Resolution 1929 (2010) enforcing tougher sanctions and an arms embargo; and Resolution 2224 (2015) extending oversight on sanctions. This means Iran’s foreign assets will be frozen, arms sales and purchases halted, and financial and transport restrictions reimposed.
Above all, this move exposed Europe’s lack of independence and its subservience to Washington. Although Abbas Araghchi had announced two days earlier that Iran had reached an agreement with the three European countries, as he himself pointed out, because the Europeans had not received the “green light from Washington,” no final agreement was reached. This reality clearly shows Europe’s inability to stand up to U.S. pressure. Even when it perceives its economic interests in engaging with Iran, at the final moment of decision-making, it chooses to follow Washington’s line.
In response, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled its ambassadors to Germany, France, and the United Kingdom to Tehran for consultations. This move signaled Tehran’s serious dissatisfaction with Europe’s misuse of the JCPOA dispute resolution mechanism and its role in reactivating rescinded UN Security Council resolutions.
Meanwhile, Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, issued a stark warning: “With the activation of the snapback, cooperation between Iran and the Agency will be suspended.” This statement indicates that Tehran has little willingness to continue unilateral cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, given that the West, instead of positively responding to Iran’s commitments, has chosen the path of pressure and sanctions.
Consequences of West’s Decision
The reinstatement of sanctions carries several serious implications:
First, Iran once again faces economic and financial restrictions imposed by UN resolutions. Although these renewed sanctions do not constitute new measures compared to the unilateral U.S. sanctions currently in place, the move itself may exert additional psychological pressure on Iranian markets.
Second, diplomatic pathways will be further undermined. Claims by French and British representatives that the return of sanctions does not mean the “end of diplomacy” are a blatant contradiction; sanctions by nature close off dialogue and strengthen the logic of pressure.
Third, the new pressures will create fertile ground for increased insecurity in the Middle East. As the Russian representative warned, this action will have “very negative consequences” and lead to “heightened tensions” in the region.
Europe’s Contradictory Behavior
The West outwardly claims that sanctions are a diplomatic tool to bring Iran back to the negotiating table. In practice, however, these sanctions make any resolution far more difficult than they facilitate. When Iran has repeatedly sent “positive signals” and accepted extensive restrictions under the JCPOA, but has received nothing in return but greater pressure, it is natural that trust in Western diplomacy is severely eroded.
This is the artificial deadlock that the U.S. and Europe have deliberately engineered: creating conditions in which diplomacy is defined as Iran’s unilateral acceptance of Western demands, while any form of resistance is branded as a “threat to international security.”
By pursuing this policy, Europe has sacrificed its independence and projected to global public opinion the image of a submissive and will-less continent. Such behavior does not enhance Europe’s standing in the international system but instead reduces it to an instrument of the United States. In the long run, this trajectory could deepen mistrust of Europe among independent countries.
The return of sanctions against Iran must be understood as part of the West’s broader strategy of destabilizing the international environment. The U.S. and Europe, through this move, aim on the one hand to weaken Iran’s bargaining power in any potential future negotiations, and on the other, to constrain Tehran’s regional initiative through maximum pressure.
Yet in practice, this policy leads above all to greater instability, diminished trust, and deepened geopolitical divides. Historical experience shows that whenever the West has chosen the path of pressure, the outcome has been nothing but intensified crises and increased costs.
This time as well, the reinstatement of sanctions will not curb Iran, but will further strengthen Tehran’s determination to diversify its foreign relations and rely on domestic capacities. In particular, Iran’s expanding cooperation with Russia, China, and other emerging powers demonstrates that Western sanctions are accelerating a process that ultimately weakens Western hegemony in the international system.
Therefore, while the reimposition of sanctions will impose immediate pressure on Iran’s economy, on the broader strategic level this decision represents yet another sign of the West’s deadlock. By insisting on sanctions and disregarding diplomatic opportunities, the West has placed itself on a path that yields nothing but increased tension and instability.
If Europe truly wishes to play an independent role in global politics, it must break free of this cycle of dependency. Otherwise, it will remain merely an instrument serving U.S. strategy.
NOURNEWS