TEHRAN – The recent statement by the foreign ministers of the three European countries—Britain, France, and Germany—regarding the activation of the so-called “Snapback” mechanism against the Islamic Republic of Iran is yet another attempt to exert political and legal pressure on a country that has not only never initiated any war in its modern history but has also been the direct victim of aggressions and repeated violations of commitments by Western powers. 

This action, outwardly carried out in the name of “maintaining international peace and security,” is in reality a continuation of the same unilateralism and double standards that have driven the world toward instability. 

Iran’s full commitment to JCPOA and West’s clear violations 

The JCPOA was signed in 2015 with the aim of resolving one of the most complex international crises through diplomacy. From the outset, Iran fully adhered to its commitments. Numerous reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) between 2015 and 2018 explicitly confirmed Iran’s compliance. However, in 2018, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in violation of international law and, through secondary sanctions, made the implementation of European commitments virtually impossible. 

The three European countries that today claim Iran has violated commitments did not take any action at the time to compensate for the damages caused by the U.S. withdrawal. Instead, they practically surrendered to Washington’s pressure. The financial mechanism known as INSTEX was never operational, and Europe failed even in fulfilling its simplest commitments—facilitating legitimate financial and trade exchanges with Iran. How can the very parties that violated the agreement now claim to implement a mechanism whose very foundation was conditional on the reciprocal compliance of all parties? 

Iran and NPT: commitment in the face of non-commitment 

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been and remains a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since the beginning of its nuclear program. Unlike the Israeli regime, which has not even joined the NPT and possesses dozens of nuclear warheads in its arsenal, Iran has consistently acted within the framework of international law. IAEA inspectors have been present in Iran continuously over the years and have repeatedly reported Tehran’s compliance with its safeguard obligations. 

What Europe calls a “reduction of JCPOA commitments” was a legitimate and legal response to the blatant violations of commitments by the other parties. No country can be expected to remain solely committed to the full implementation of an agreement when all the other parties have violated their obligations. 

Attacks on Iran: a clear violation of international law 

During the 12-day war between Iran and Israel back in June, the United States and Israel attacked Iranian territory, initiating an aggression against Iran’s sovereignty, and under false pretenses, they also targeted civilians and residential areas. The U.S. itself directly targeted Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities during the war. 

This action was a blatant act of aggression and a violation of the United Nations Charter. The fundamental question is this: how can countries that themselves directly or indirectly took part in such aggression now claim to be concerned about “global peace and security”? 

According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran has the undeniable right to defend itself against aggression. This defense may include reconsidering cooperation with institutions that have effectively become tools of Western political pressure, including the IAEA. No country will allow international monitoring tools to become instruments for gathering intelligence in order to bomb its peaceful facilities. 

The West’s double standards: nuclear arsenals of Israel and the U.S. 

In their article, the three European countries claimed that Iran’s enrichment of uranium up to 60 percent poses a threat to global peace. But these countries have never explained why the massive nuclear arsenals of the United States, France, Britain, and Israel—which together hold thousands of ready-to-launch warheads—are not considered a threat. 

Why is Israel, which has adhered to none of the international disarmament commitments and has repeatedly committed military aggression in the region, not held accountable? Why is Europe’s silence regarding the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Israel not interpreted as acceptance of the real threat to global security? 

The illegality of the snapback mechanism under current conditions 

The Snapback mechanism was included in the JCPOA to allow for the restoration of UN Security Council resolutions in the event of a party’s non-compliance. But the main condition for its implementation was the reciprocal commitment of all parties. When the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA and the three European countries also violated their commitments, there remained no legitimacy for activating this mechanism. 

In other words, the parties that themselves violated the agreement lack the legal and political authority to invoke its provisions. Europe’s recent move is nothing more than a political misuse of the Security Council and an attempt to impose its illegal will on the international community. 

Iran: a peace-seeking nation versus historical warmongers 

For more than four decades, despite various threats and sanctions, the Islamic Republic of Iran has never initiated a war or violated the sovereignty of another country. In contrast, the U.S. and its European allies have a long record of warmongering, coups, military occupations, and bloodshed in various countries across the world—from Iraq and Afghanistan to Libya and Syria. 

Do countries with such a track record of violating global peace and security have the authority to pass judgment on Iran? Do they possess the political and moral legitimacy to dictate the fate of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program? 

Ultimately, the recent statement by the three European countries reflects not “concern for global peace,” but another act in the play of double standards and political pressure against an independent country. Iran has repeatedly emphasized that its nuclear program is peaceful and that it has never sought and will never seek nuclear weapons. Yet the Islamic Republic of Iran is a nation with advanced indigenous capabilities, a unique geopolitical position, and wide regional influence—a country that, despite sanctions, threats, and conspiracies over the past four decades, has not only endured but has also managed to become one of the decisive powers in regional and global equations. 

Today, Iran is not merely a passive actor in the face of Western decisions; it is a country capable of responding to any military, political, or economic threat. Iran’s indigenous arsenal—whether defensive, economic, scientific, or human—clearly demonstrates that pressure and sanctions have only strengthened the nation’s self-reliance. 

The message that must be heard today is clear: the era of bullying and violating the rights of independent nations is over. The world is no longer unipolar, and nations more than ever demand respect for national sovereignty and equality in the international system. Any attempt to reproduce the failed policies of pressure, threats, and sanctions will not only prove ineffective but will also lead to greater isolation of the violators of international law. 

With reliance on its people, its indigenous capacities, and its strategic geopolitical position, the Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to deliver an appropriate and decisive response to any threat or aggression. The choice lies with the West: either to accept the reality of a powerful Iran and move toward mutual respect and constructive diplomacy, or to continue failed policies that will result in nothing but increased distrust, insecurity, and further exposure of their true face.