By Steve Bell
On August 28th, Foreign Ministers from Britain, France and Germany (“E3”) notified the UN Security Council (UNSC) of their intention to invoke the “snapback” mechanism under UNSC resolution 2231 (2015). This means that 30 days later, September 27th, all sanctions and embargos upon Iran that had been removed by Iran’s agreement to regulation of its civilian nuclear industry will be reimposed. Before the end date there is the opportunity for further diplomacy. But at the end date the reimposition is automatic – the UNSC cannot veto this process.
The course Starmer, Macron and Merz have opened, if not blocked, will have two consequences. Firstly, it is certain to assault the living standards, welfare, and life expectancy of over ninety million Iranians. Secondly, it is most likely to trigger a new war on Iran.
Sanctioning the people of Iran
The nuclear agreement, JCPOA, of 2015 set aside six previous UNSC resolutions passed between 2006 and 2010. These imposed restrictions upon all nations in cooperating with Iran’s nuclear programme and with its commerce. Cutting Iran off from sections of the world market had a serious impact. One estimate is that Iran lost 19.1 per cent of its GDP over the years 2011-15. (1) When an economy loses a fifth of its product then the population face a comparable reduction in their living standards.
Reimposing such a cut upon the Iranian people is particularly severe because of an already unfavourable context. The JCPOA was effectively broken in 2018 when President Trump withdrew the US from its provisions, and imposed secondary sanctions on those engaging in legal, peaceful trade with Iran. Since that time Iran has been subjected to this coercive campaign of “maximum pressure”. Initiated by Trump, it was continued throughout Biden’s term and has been reinforced in Trump’s second term.
The impact has been profound. “Between 2018 and 2021 Iran’s economy contracted by 12% and its per capita income by 14%, poverty rose by 11% and average living standards fell by 13%. Inflation ravaged the economy. Food prices rose by 186% and healthcare by 125%. As disposable income shrank, Iranians spent 30% less on education and 32% less on entertainment… by one estimate 75% of Iranians in 2022 needed government economic assistance to make ends meet.” (2)
So, with the goal of forcing Iran to accept a US framework for its nuclear industry, the E3 governments intend to inflict further terrible hardship upon the Iranian people. All arguments from politicians and academics supporting the E3 actions as “targeted”, “smart” and “aimed at the regime” should be dismissed. Sanctions are a blunt instrument of siege warfare against the civilian population. Their effect has been known since their use against civilian populations in World War 1 – hunger, suffering and hardship being the evident result. (3)
E3 – double standards or none?
Of course, the E3 governments are completely aware that the US government broke the JCPOA agreement. Yet they choose to use a punitive measure against the partner who upheld the agreement, Iran, to the benefit of the partner who reneged on it, the US. Double standards or none?
Even worse, the E3 governments themselves did not uphold their part in the agreement. With Trump’s withdrawal and imposition of secondary sanctions the E3 could have chosen to defend their countries commerce with Iran. The European Commission gave some consideration to introducing legislation similar to that it had used from 1996 to protect EU trade with Cuba from US sanctions. That legislation protected EU trade with Cuba until 2019.
But the idea was abandoned. The EU simply collapsed its trade with Iran by failing to take any measures to protect EU companies from legal action. The result is that total European trade with Iran in 2024 was EUR4.5B – one fifth of what it was in 2017, the last full year of JCPOA implementation. (4) Conclusive evidence of the E3’s failure to uphold their part in the JCPOA which was to defend the benefits Iran was entitled to under its provisions.
Justifying the unjustifiable
There is no justification for the E3 governments action. The rational in their letter to the UNSC does not withstand inspection. We are told that since July 2019, “Iran has increasingly and deliberately ceased performing its JCPOA commitments.” Yet the US withdrew completely in 2018, and the E3 immediately failed to confront that withdrawal, or to uphold their commitment to ensure Iran received the benefits from its compliance.
The letter makes much of Iran’s subsequent decision to undertake uranium enrichment above JCPOA levels. But it does not mention that Iran’s step by step increase was explicitly stated as a response to US withdrawal and would be rolled back with a resumption of US compliance. The only obstacle to the US returning to the JCPOA was the US administration’s inertia, yet the letter implies that somehow Iran was responsible for the US’s refusal to return.
The letter also attempts to portray relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and its inspectors, as one of Iranian non-compliance. Yet Iran has allowed its facilities to undergo more inspections by the IAEA than any other country in the world. Whatever differences occurred during that time, at no point did the IAEA inspectors find any evidence of Iran having a weaponisation programme. Indeed, the intelligence reports of the US government presented to Congress in March 2025 confirm that there is no evidence of Iran attempting to produce a nuclear bomb. Yet the E3 letter, with no evidence, states that “Iran’s actions stand in stark contrast to an exclusively peaceful use of its nuclear programme.” Guilty, until proven innocent?
The sole reference to the US breach of the agreement is, “Since May 2018 and the decision by the United States to end participation in the JCPOA, the E3 have worked tirelessly to preserve the agreement.” As the E3 have refused to confront the US’s “maximum pressure” on Iran since May 2018, “tirelessly” is hardly apt – “aimlessly” would be better.
The references to the Israeli/US war on Iran in June are worse. ” Even prior to the strikes in June 2025, the IAEA had lost continuity of knowledge regarding several parts of Iran’s programme.” The deaths of over a thousand Iranians do not rate a mention, nor does the illegal character or unprovoked nature of these “strikes.”
Further, “The E3 reiterate our continuing commitment to a diplomatic solution that prevents Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. We did not participate in the planning or execution of any military action against Iran.” As Bill Clinton said, “I did not have sex with that woman.” So, Macron said, on June 13th, “France reaffirms Israel’s right to defend itself and ensure its security.” Merz, same day, said, “Israel has the right to defend its existence and the safety and security of its citizens.” And a statement from Downing Street, on the same day, “The Prime Minister was clear that Israel has a right to self-defence and set out the UK’s grave concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme.” Or, as Merz said, more succinctly, on everybody’s behalf, “This is dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us.”
Raising the risk of a new war
The action of the E3 also severely raises the risk of a new war, regardless of their self-praise of diplomatic consistency. Here the most critical issues are those connected with Iran’s sovereignty over its nuclear industry; the issue of missile development; and the access of Iran to purchasing arms on the world market.
Under the JCPOA, Iran was acknowledged as having the right to enrich its own uranium, albeit to a specific level defined in the agreement. This is not a small matter, as it demonstrates that Iran is accorded the respect and sovereignty over the use of its own resources. In this sense, it echoes the tremendous struggle the Iranian people had to regain control over their own oil resources, from the start of the 20th century, and including the notorious US/British coup against elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953.
The Iranian government has made it absolutely clear that retaining the right to enrich its own uranium, in line with other JCPOA signatories, is a red line in negotiations. Initially Trump, in his second term, had indicated that this was not an obstacle, the decisive issue was nuclear weapons which Iran had already forsworn. But the Israeli government had always opposed this and successfully joined with neo-conservatives inside the Trump administration to shift the US position into opposing enrichment rights for Iran. That had previously been the position of the US government in the early 2000’s. It was under the Obama administration that the stance was changed.
Obama understood that UN and US sanctions had failed to bring the Iranian state to a point of submission. Accepting Iran’s right to enrichment was the key concession by the US that made the JCPOA possible.
Addressing his domestic critics, Obama outlined the path, “There really are only two alternatives here: either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation, or its resolved through force, through war. Those are the options.” The option of just increasing sanctions until the Iranians gave up completely simply did not exist, the Obama team maintained. “sanctioning Iran until it capitulates makes for a powerful talking point and a pretty good political speech, but it’s not achievable outside a world of fantasy,” Kerry said on the eve of the deal.” (5)
It is then evident that if UN sanctions are reimposed, which did not accept Iran’s right to enrich its own uranium, we arrive at the same fork as Obama. The whole fraught character of West Asia at present suggests that the US will have no patience with waiting for sanctions to “work.” Most likely is that US imperialism, and its favourite Israeli instrument, will try the road Obama did not travel. This is surely so given that Trump is going to find it difficult to accept that Iran’s nuclear industry has not been “obliterated” as he claimed after the June war.
Similarly, the reimposition of UN sanctions will outlaw cooperation with Iran’s missile programme, particularly its ballistic missiles. The significance of this is that Iran’s air force has been absolutely hindered by decades of sanctions. It has no access to advanced fighter planes, consequently it has one of the weakest air forces in West Asia.
Working around this restriction, scientists and engineers have developed one of the most effective missile and drone programmes in the region. This is precisely out of necessity and self-defence. However, exactly for that reason it has long been the aim of US policy to restrict or end the ballistic missile programme and render the country defenceless.
Equally, Iran gained access, after 2020, to international arms purchases outlawed before the JCPOA. A reimposition of UN sanctions would reimpose an arms embargo.
What is clear is that any one, or all three of these issues – enrichment, missiles, and arms purchases – can become a “cause for war” in the eyes of those eager for a second round of war. The E3’s abandonment of diplomacy has offered vital weapons to those in the imperialist camp who would use the force of arms over the force of dialogue.
Opposition to the E3 action is vital
The alliance of the US, E3 and Israel presents the people of Iran with a very dismal perspective. However, the growing unpopularity of US policy in West Asia in that region and amongst the US population; Israel’s international isolation for its Gaza genocide; and the fragmentation of EU governments on these issues, are sources of assistance to Iran. The other is that states and nations in the global south do not wish to see Iran isolated, under siege or under bombardment. Gaza has lifted the last veil off imperialist claims to monopolise human rights and values.
In response to the E3’s letter to the UNSC the governments of China, Iran and Russia published a joint letter to the UNSC. The significance is that China and Russia are also a party to the JCPOA. The letter rejects the very basis of the E3’s action.
It states that the E3 action, “…contravenes the resolution, and therefore, it is by default legally and procedurally flawed… At the inception of the JCPOA, when the “snapback” mechanism was established, it could hardly be foreseen that the US would be the first to break its obligations… the “snapback” mechanism… can no longer be used in relation to Iran without properly addressing and resolving in advance the US significant non-performance.” Highlighting the E3’s failure and its compliance with the illegal and discriminatory sanctions against Iran, the letter highlights the key principle of international law endorsed by the International Court of Justice that “a party which disowns or does not fulfil its own obligations cannot be recognised as retaining the rights which it claims to derive from the relationship.”
This view means that it is not a forgone conclusion that the “international community” will be a party to the reimposition of UN sanctions. Yes, that “community” aligned to the US certainly will. But most of the world’s states, representing the majority of humanity are unlikely to be compliant with the E3’s mugging of international law. Doubtless US will try and break arms. But the growing multi-polarity of the world economy and international institutions offers Iran a framework for continuing to resist.
The E3 are deploying an interested amnesia. They demand that Iran return to the negotiating table. Refusing then to recall that on June 15th Iran was to have taken part in the sixth round of indirect talks with the US. But that particular table was destroyed two days earlier by Israeli missiles, launched with US endorsement.
And in a week when Israel bombs Qatar in an attempt to prevent Hamas considering ceasefire proposals, the E3 publishes a statement to the IAEA which refuses to name the US as either non-compliant with the JCPOA, or as a party to the June war on Iran. (6)
As Sina Toossi, senior fellow at the Centre for International Policy, told Al Jazeera on 29 August, “The overall US and European approach to Iran has been just brute power – like might is right. Anything about legal contracts and history and international norms doesn’t matter. They just want to use this instrument to unilaterally reimpose sanctions on Iran.”
As a result of the E3 action the war danger upon Iran and the Gulf has escalated. It is vital that anti-war activists in Britain make a clear appraisal of the danger and prepare for a mobilisation against the new assault. We must demand our government break from the E3 position and that MPs challenge a policy that endangers the lives of millions across Iran and West Asia.
The above article was originally published here by the Stop The War Coalition.
Notes
1. “How Sanctions Work: Iran and the Impact of Economic Warfare”, Narges Bajoghli, Vali Nasr, Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, and Ali Vaez, Stanford University Press, 2024, p.81
2. Ibid, p.128
3. For a clear, historical explanation of this see “The Economic Weapon”, Nicholas Mulder, Yale University Press, 2022
4. “Will return of UN sanctions sever Iran’s economic lifelines?”. Esfandyar Batmanghelidj, Amwaj.media website, Sept 1, 2025
5. “Losing an Enemy”, Trita Parsi, Yale University Press, 2017, p.184
6. “NPT Safeguards Agreement with Iran: E3 Statement to the IAEA Board of Governors, September 2025”, UK Gov FCDO, September 10, 2025