The foundation of this crisis lies in Iran’s persistent and demonstrably repeated violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), originally signed in 2015. Prior to the snapback, Iran had consistently exceeded the JCPOA’s limits on enriched uranium quantities and levels – reaching a point where, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) September 4th, 2025 report, Iran held a stockpile 48 times over the JCPOA’s permissible limits and possessed 10 ‘Significant Quantities’ of High Enriched Uranium (HEU), ten times the amount deemed unacceptably high for non-proliferation purposes. Data from the IAEA indicates a shift to enrichment technology capable of producing weapons-grade uranium, further alarming international observers. This build-up occurred despite numerous diplomatic efforts and multiple offers from the E3 to reinstate the JCPOA.
Key Stakeholders and Motivations: The dynamics involved are multifaceted. Iran’s actions are attributed by the E3 to a pattern of deliberate circumvention of the JCPOA, fueled by perceived Western inaction and mistrust. Iran’s justifications, largely centred on asserting its sovereign right to pursue scientific research and development, are viewed internationally as a thinly veiled attempt to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. The United States, having withdrawn from the JCPOA in 2018, maintains its position that Iran’s nuclear activities pose an immediate and grave threat to regional and global security. Russia and China, while nominally supporting the JCPOA, have often adopted a more cautious approach, highlighting concerns about the deal’s effectiveness and advocating for a broader diplomatic solution. The EU, while supportive of the JCPOA, finds itself caught between competing interests and the immediate need to address Iran’s nuclear behaviour. According to a recent report by the International Crisis Group, “Iran’s actions are driven by a potent mixture of geopolitical ambition, domestic political calculations, and a deep-seated suspicion of Western intentions.”
Recent Developments & The Vote: The Security Council vote on September 19th, 2025, to reinstate sanctions lifting under Resolution 2231, was a resounding rejection – a clear signal of the international community’s condemnation of Iran’s actions. This outcome underscored the limitations of relying solely on diplomatic leverage when confronting a state demonstrably disregarding its non-proliferation commitments. Prior to the vote, the E3 had engaged in intensive negotiations with Iran, proposing a limited, one-time snapback extension, contingent upon Iran returning to direct negotiations with the US, addressing its HEU stockpile, and resuming compliance with IAEA safeguards. This offer, presented on July 2025, was ultimately rejected. This signifies a shift in strategy from simply restoring the JCPOA to directly confronting Iran’s most dangerous behaviours.
Looking Ahead: The immediate impact of the snapback is the resumption of sanctions, which will undoubtedly stifle Iran’s economy and further isolate the country. Short-term outcomes are likely to include continued escalation of tensions, potentially involving increased naval deployments in the Persian Gulf and heightened surveillance of Iranian nuclear sites. Over the next five to ten years, several scenarios are plausible. A continuation of the current trajectory could lead to a further destabilization of the region, with Iran steadily advancing its nuclear capabilities. Alternatively, a renewed, sustained diplomatic effort, potentially involving new players or a revised multilateral framework, could lead to a negotiated solution. However, achieving a durable agreement will require a fundamental shift in Iran’s perception of the international system and a demonstrable commitment to verifiable non-proliferation. “The risk of miscalculation and escalation remains alarmingly high,” stated Dr. R. Patel, Senior Fellow at the Chatham House, “and the international community must act decisively to prevent a catastrophic outcome.” The re-instatement of sanctions represents a powerful, albeit potentially fraught, tool, but its effectiveness hinges on a broader commitment to collective action and a willingness to engage in serious, sustained diplomacy. The situation demands heightened vigilance and proactive engagement from all stakeholders to mitigate the escalating risks.