Following the JCPOA Model Is the Best Solution for Iran’s Case
Mehr News Agency, International Desk: Recently, the United Nations Security council rejectedâ Russia and China’s proposal to extend Resolution 2231 andâ preserve diplomacy regarding Iran’s nuclear âŁissue.This resolution aimed to maintain diplomatic⣠channels and prevent⣠tensions. It was supported by Russia, âChina, Pakistan, and Algeria but opposed by European countries and the United States.
Iran has consistently pursued all rational and constructive diplomatic avenues⣠– including âŁthe Cairo Agreement âand direct talks with European âcountries – even amid regional tensions.However, European states aligned with Washingtonâ have continued demanding actions beyond Iran’s commitments.
One of the most contentious measures is the so-called “snapback” mechanism âintended to reinstate UN sanctions lifted âunder Resolution 2231. Tehran has repeatedly stated that⢠activating snapback is illegal and lacks legitimacy because⢠it revives previously removed restrictions.
Iranian officials have also firmly rejected Western calls â¤to haltâ uranium enrichment, âemphasizing their nuclear program remains peaceful. Byâ recalling its ambassadors from Germany, France,⢠and⣠the UK for consultations, Tehran signaled â˘a new phase in its âdiplomacy-one thatâ upholds diplomatic principles while affirming its⤠right to respond to illegitimate pressures.
This eventâ highlights the complexity of international diplomacy⣠where unreasonable demands and âunilateral measures create new challenges. Nevertheless, Tehran retains cautious control over these pressures while keeping negotiationâ doors open.
To provide clearer insight, Mehr⢠News Agency interviewed Marc Finaud, senior advisor at Geneva Center forâ Security âPolicyâ and former spokesperson for France’s Ministry of Foreign⣠Affairs.
Finaud stressed legal and political complexities surrounding the snapback mechanism. He explained⤠it was initially introduced during JCPOA negotiations as a âcredible tool for all parties to âensure compliance. “This mechanism,” he said “was proposed by Russia during JCPOA talks to reassure skeptics-especially within the U.S.Congress-that⣠all parties had strong pressure means ensuring Iran’s adherence.” the process could be initiated by any JCPOA member without permanent Security Council members exercising veto power. Legally speaking, this originated from three European nations⢠who led JCPOA negotiations starting in â2003.”
Regarding America’s withdrawal from JCPOA in 2018 versus its current role promoting snapback enforcement mechanisms⤠today, Finaud explained âŁthat today’s crisis stems from President Trump’s⤠decision ânot only quitting but attempting inâ 2020 â¤to activate snapback despite no longer being a party-a move â˘other Security Council members opposed.
“There⤠is there’s no doubt whatsoever,” he added “that this crisis began after Trump management left in 2018; âŁsoâ when America tried using âsnapback inâ 2020 others ârejected it asâ they consider America no longer part of JCPOA.” He⢠noted how Trump administration currently supports E3 initiatives opposing sanction waivers â˘renewal at Security Council meetings.”
The former diplomat â¤also referenced Tehran’s announced gradual âŁreductionâ of commitmentsâ followingâ Washington’s exit-and Europe’s failure compensating Iran’s losses â˘under those⤠conditions.
If asked about broader⢠negative implications regarding multilateral agreements’ credibility worldwide due to this impasse: “Indeed,” Finaud said “America withdrawing sent a âŁvery damaging âmessage overall⢠– exposing tension between great-power politics versus⢠multilateralism as means solving global challenges-an ongoing dilemma.” â¤He remarked further: “Iran responded partly by suspending some obligations (includingâ key additional protocols), fueling doubts if their nuclear program remains wholly peaceful.”
The voting behavior among smaller states demonstrated both political alignment patterns but also independent judgment according to âFinaud: “European countries like Denmark or Slovenia generally align with Western powers; â¤whereas Global South nations such as Panama or Sierra Leone appeared less pressured politically on these decisions.”
Tensions remain entrenched on balancing power within Security Council where persistent rivalry between Western permanent members versus Russia-China blocks has paralyzed decisive actions addressing conflicts worldwide-for years⣠according to him.⣠“Until permanent members prioritize peace/security interests globally âabove national agendas,” he concluded “the council will remain ineffective.”
Concluding his remarks about alternatives beyond sanctions or âcoercion towards resolving deadlock over Iran’s nuclear dossier:
“Relying heavily on military options or maximalist sanctions-as advocated principally by âU.S., Israel-undermines prospects for peaceful resolutions,”⤠he argued.
He reminded history shows sanctions ârarely achieve intended political objectives while âdisproportionately harming ordinary citizens.
In contrast,”JCPOA demonstrated lifting sanctions incentivizes stronger motivation for negotiated settlements.”
“Following this model may help resolve current crisis⣠without further weakening âŁglobal⣠non-proliferation regime.”
“Conversely,” he affirmed “JCPOA proved prospect of sanction relief offers⣠more powerful inducement toward ânegotiated agreement-this approach âshould guide efforts addressing today’s stalemate.”
