European trio wants snapback, but can it handle blowback?
The threat to reinstate sanctions on a nation that has stood firm against two nuclear powers has raised serious doubts about whether its intended outcomes can be realized—and the costs of enforcing it may far outweigh any benefits.
The inclusion of the “snapback” mechanism in the JCPOA was meant to preserve the fragile trust built through two years of negotiations before the 2015 deal. That trust has since been shattered by attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. While invoking snapback may further affect Iran’s economy, it remains questionable whether it will serve the interests of Germany, France and Britian.
A month into Israel’s war on Iran, Europe has brandished the snapback sword—but its real-world effectiveness is being called into question. The mechanism, originally designed to reduce chronic skepticism, now seems to have eroded confidence further between Iran and the remaining European signatories to the tattered deal. Germany, France and the UK have leaned on this clause despite their own inaction since May 2018, when the US walked away from the deal and began its unravel.
Europe justifies its threat of triggering the snapback of sanctions appealing to two conflicting views about Iran’s nuclear capacity following Israeli and US strikes. One, voiced by the US President Donald Trump, claims the attacks effectively ended Iran’s nuclear drive. The other, drawn from intelligence assessments—even Western ones—argues that at best, the strikes only delayed Iran’s program. In that light, Europe is forced to address a simple question: if Iran’s nuclear program has been neutralized, why trigger snapback? And if not, how can ratcheting up pressure now halt it?
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi cautioned diplomats in Tehran: the Europeans risk making the same error as the US by opting for snapback, only tightening the diplomatic noose. “The same mistake the Americans made by moving toward a military option, Europeans can also make by heading toward snapback and pushing diplomacy into a dead end,” Araghchi warned.
Page 2