TEHRAN – Sergey Lavrov, in an interview with Russian media, said that Iran has shown the highest level of restraint and readiness for dialogue in response to all Western provocations.

The Russian foreign minister told the TASS news agency: “We have noticed that the Iranians are demonstrating maximum restraint, and that they respond to all Western provocations and blackmail with openness to dialogue, seeking ways to resolve the current contradictions through political means.”

In 2025, five rounds of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States, mediated by Oman, ended without results due to the launch of military operations by the Zionist regime against the Islamic Republic and U.S. air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The JCPOA has been largely defunct since 2018. Following the United States’ illegal withdrawal from the agreement and the reimposition of sweeping sanctions, Europe failed to provide the promised economic relief that was central to the deal. After nearly 18 months of waiting in vain, Iran began gradually reducing its nuclear commitments in response to Western inaction — a move Tehran has said was fully consistent with Articles 26 and 36 of the JCPOA.

Russia and China, the two remaining signatories that have stayed committed to the agreement, have repeatedly stated that the paralysis of the JCPOA is the result of Western non-compliance. Both have called on Europe and the United States to return to genuine diplomacy rather than coercion.

Adding to the tension, U.S. and Israeli air strikes in June targeted Iranian nuclear facilities — the very sites safeguarded under the JCPOA framework. The attacks were condemned worldwide as a blatant act of aggression. U.S. President Donald Trump later boasted that the strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear infrastructure — remarks Tehran said amounted to an open admission of war crimes.

“Snapback” was a mechanism under UN Security Council Resolution 2231 designed to automatically reinstate UN sanctions against Iran if it violated the terms of the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement signed in 2015 by Iran, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China. Under the deal, Iran committed to limiting its nuclear program in return for sanctions relief. However, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and reimposed sanctions in 2018. European signatories insisted Iran continue adhering to the JCPOA, despite their inability to compel Washington’s return or mitigate the debilitating effects of U.S. sanctions.

The snapback mechanism was officially invoked by the European signatories to the JCPOA — Britain, Germany, and France — in late August. On September 19, the United Nations Security Council voted not to permanently lift the pre-JCPOA UN sanctions against Iran. On September 27, the Security Council also rejected a resolution brought forward by Russia and China — the remaining signatories to the JCPOA alongside Iran, after the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 — seeking to delay the snapback of sanctions. A day later, the E3 declared that UN sanctions against Iran had officially been reimposed.

While welcomed by Washington and Tel Aviv, the move failed to materialize in practice when Russia and China stated they would not recognize the snapback of UN sanctions. This stance was echoed by more than 120 other countries, which voiced support for Iran during a conference of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) held in Uganda. The legal basis for reimposing pre-JCPOA UN sanctions was further undermined after Resolution 2231 officially expired in October. Iran, Russia, and China cited this expiration in a separate letter to the UN Security Council and the UN Secretary-General.

The Europeans stated that they invoked snapback due to concerns including Tehran’s suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after the June war, and uncertainty regarding the whereabouts of Iran’s enriched uranium — particularly its 60% enriched stockpile — reportedly stored at nuclear sites illegally struck by Israel and the United States.

In November, Iran sent Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to Cairo to sign a new cooperation agreement with the IAEA. This deal, which later became null, drew significant criticism inside Iran. The Iranian public’s long-standing belief that the UN nuclear watchdog serves as a tool of the West, rather than a neutral technical body, was significantly exacerbated during the 12-day U.S.-Israeli aggression against Iran, when the agency refused to condemn the illegal attacks on Iranian nuclear, civilian, and military infrastructure.

Between late August and late September, Iran also expressed readiness to address Western concerns regarding its enriched uranium stockpile, according to information previously revealed by the Tehran Times. Tehran initially planned to transfer its 60% enriched uranium to Russia. However, it later informed Europe and the United States that it was willing to transfer the uranium directly to Western states if the snapback mechanism were scrapped. Both Europe and Washington welcomed this offer.

The United States later requested a trilateral summit in New York to publicly announce the breakthrough, involving a representative from Iran, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, and U.S. presidential envoy Steve Witkoff. The meeting was planned to coincide with the Iranian delegation’s trip for the annual UN General Assembly. Tehran agreed, and the summit was later expanded to include the E3.

However, just as Iranians were preparing to depart for New York, Witkoff notified Araghchi that Washington had unilaterally changed the terms of the agreement. The new condition, according to Tehran, was that the United States would only ask the Europeans to suspend or extend the snapback if Iran surrendered its uranium first. Araghchi rejected the demand outright, stating that Iran would not allow another party to dictate the terms of any agreement, and that Tehran would rather cancel the summit altogether. Despite European efforts to persuade Washington, the Trump administration did not budge.