Snapback or return ...
Page 1
If international agreements can be activated, paused, or weaponized at the discretion of powerful actors irrespective of their current legal status, we risk entering an era where legal instruments are manipulated as tools of domination rather than cooperation. This undermines not just Iran’s sovereign rights, but the credibility of global diplomacy as a whole.
Geopolitical calculus behind
snapback threats
The threat of the snapback of sanctions is rarely about technical non-compliance; it is often tied to broader objectives. For the United States and certain European allies, the invocation of the snapback can serve multiple purposes: to pressure Iran into further concessions, to influence domestic politics in Tehran, or to signal firmness to domestic and regional audiences.
However, such tactics are fraught with risk. History has shown that coercive approaches, particularly when perceived as legally illegitimate, tend to entrench resistance rather than foster compliance.
Furthermore, global perceptions of Western duplicity—exiting an agreement only to re-enter its punitive clauses—undermine trust not just in the JCPOA but in international diplomacy writ large. In a time when multilateralism is already under severe strain, such acts send a harmful message to other nations considering negotiated solutions to complex security challenges.
Reimagining legal integrity
in global governance
The snapback debate is not solely about Iran or nuclear diplomacy. It is emblematic of a larger crisis in international law—namely, the gap between formal legal structures and the geopolitical realities that shape their application. When the enforcement of law becomes selective or expedient, the very idea of a rules-based international order comes into question.
This calls for a renewed commitment to legal coherence and multilateral accountability. The JCPOA was, and remains, a test case for the viability of negotiated diplomacy in resolving high-stakes security issues. If its provisions are to be respected selectively, the precedent set will ripple far beyond the Middle East.
Call for constructive engagement
Rather than reverting to punitive mechanisms with questionable legal grounding, the international community must recommit to diplomacy as the first—and not last—resort. Genuine engagement, mutual respect, and adherence to international norms are not signs of weakness; they are pillars of sustainable peace and stability.
For its part, Iran has consistently signaled readiness to return to its JCPOA commitments, provided that sanctions relief is verifiably restored. The onus now lies with Western powers to decide whether they seek compliance through trust-building or coercion through legal manipulation.
The international community must ask itself: Do we stand for law as a shared foundation or as a weapon wielded by the powerful? The answer will define not only the fate of the JCPOA but the credibility of international diplomacy for decades to come.