The Media Line: A Complete U-Turn: Europe Aligns With Washington on Iran Sanctions 

Audio By Carbonatix

Enlarge

A Complete U-Turn: Europe Aligns With Washington on Iran Sanctions 

Experts say the E3’s decision to trigger UN snapback sanctions marks a dramatic policy shift driven by the Ukraine war and Iran’s ties to Russia 

By Giorgia Valente/The Media Line 

France, Germany, and the UK—the so-called E3—are preparing to trigger the “snapback” of UN sanctions on Iran, a mechanism built into the 2015 nuclear deal. The move will launch a 30-day process that is expected to culminate in the reinstatement of all sanctions suspended under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. 

Supporters of the measure say snapback is essential to pressure Tehran into resuming negotiations and granting the International Atomic Energy Agency full access to its nuclear facilities. Critics counter that the step could fuel escalation rather than advance diplomacy. 

Thierry Coville, a research fellow at the French think tank IRIS, told The Media Line the mechanism is straightforward. “The snapback clause was embedded in the 2015 nuclear agreement. If one member state considers that Iran has not fulfilled its obligations, then all the UN sanctions that were suspended can be reinstated. That is precisely what the Europeans have initiated by sending a letter to the UN Security Council,” he said. 

He emphasized that the process includes a one-month window for diplomacy. “Iran has already declared that it will react. This one-month window is critical: it allows both sides to negotiate and perhaps find a compromise. If no deal emerges, the sanctions are automatically triggered,” he added. 

Coville also pointed out that while the measures target nuclear and ballistic programs, their indirect effect on Iran’s fragile economy is unavoidable. “The European trade with Iran is already minimal. But for Iran itself, these sanctions will reinforce a sense of isolation, worsen inflation, and further weaken its ability to attract investment. We are talking about a market of 90 million people—urban, dynamic, but increasingly cut off from the global economy,” he said. 

From a legal and commercial perspective, Daniel Martin, partner and head of the sanctions team at the law firm HFW, told The Media Line that the impact of UN sanctions should not be overstated. “If UN sanctions are reimposed, they are limited in scope—they were always far less extensive than EU or UK sanctions, let alone US sanctions. In addition, because UN sanctions do not have direct effect on individuals or entities, they only take effect when domestic legislation is adopted to implement them,” he explained. 

Still, Martin stressed that businesses cannot afford to ignore the development. “Banks and NGOs will need to identify which national laws apply to them, determine what asset freezes are imposed under those laws, and immediately review their commercial relationships with Iranian individuals and entities. They will need to decide whether they are required to cease doing business or freeze funds in line with those legal obligations,” he said. 

He added that the UK and the EU are likely drafting legislation to progressively reintroduce sanctions, which means companies must be ready to review their contracts. “Businesses should carefully review the legislation once it is introduced. In the meantime, they should review any existing trade with Iran or Iranian counterparties—especially the sanctions clauses in contracts—to determine whether they can suspend performance or terminate contracts if required by law. Depending on the specific contract language, arguments about illegality, material adverse change, frustration, or force majeure may also be possible. But companies are likely to be in a stronger position if they can rely directly on a sanctions clause,” Martin said. 

He also noted that within Europe itself, unease is growing. “Governments are moving quickly to align with Washington, but business circles remain concerned. Companies fear being caught between shifting regulations and the reality that Iranian trade has long since become negligible. The message is clear: be cautious, disengage, and wait,” he said. 

Beyond the economic and legal dimensions, the snapback represents a political turning point. Coville argued that Europe has “made a complete U-turn” in its approach to Iran. “Once, Europeans were champions of diplomacy with Iran. Today, largely because of the war in Ukraine and Iran’s alignment with Russia, Europe has shifted toward maximum pressure, in lockstep with Washington,” he said. 

Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute, told The Media Line the E3’s move must be seen in a broader geopolitical context. He argued that the mechanism, once intended to prevent a US war with Iran, now risks hastening confrontation. “The demand that Iran halt all enrichment was designed by Israel to sabotage diplomacy and push the conflict closer to war. Snapback provides useful political cover for renewed Israeli attacks on Iran—a thin veneer of legitimacy that makes escalation more likely,” he said. 

Parsi also warned that diplomacy under current conditions could collapse. “Iran was already at the negotiating table when Israel and the US began bombing it. Now the E3 insist Tehran return to talks, but they make no demand that Washington refrain from bombing again. Under such conditions, talks are almost certain to collapse—and that only increases the likelihood that war will start sooner rather than later,” he said. 

He added that Europe’s calculus now extends beyond the nuclear file. “Iran’s alignment with Russia in Ukraine has recast it as a direct threat in Europe’s eyes. Aligning with Washington’s hard-liners is now seen as a way to ease tensions in a transatlantic relationship under unprecedented strain. Escalation with Iran now serves European interests in ways unimaginable two decades ago,” he noted. 

The three experts emphasize different aspects of the looming snapback: Coville stresses its legal basis and the slim possibility of diplomacy; Martin examines the practical implications for businesses; and Parsi underscores the geopolitical risks and Europe’s changing posture since 2003. 

If no compromise is reached, sanctions will automatically return, leaving both Europe and Iran more isolated and less able to engage. Coville warned: “If the UN sanctions are reimposed, the result will be a lose-lose situation. Iran will suffer greater economic isolation and political pressure, but Europe too will lose: it will find it extremely difficult to engage Iran on any issue. Dialogue will become nearly impossible.” 

Parsi offered a stark conclusion. “The constellation that was designed in 2003 to prevent war may, in 2025, be pushing us closer to one. Whether snapback revives diplomacy or accelerates confrontation will depend less on the technicalities of sanctions and more on whether Washington, Tehran, and Europe can find a path to de-escalation—something that appears increasingly elusive,” he said.