Iran International
The reimposition of UN sanctions on Iran, atop the US sanctions President Masoud Pezeshkian had pledged to lift during his election campaign, has disillusioned many of his moderate supporters and prompted hardliners to call for his resignation.
In a joint statement on Sunday, the so-called E3 foreign ministers said the snapback mechanism under UN Security Council Resolution 2231 had been triggered on August 28 and completed late on September 27, restoring six previous resolutions imposing international sanctions.
“We welcome the re-instatement since 20:00 EDT on 27 September of Resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747, 1803, 1835, and 1929 after completion of the snapback process,” the ministers said. “We urge Iran and all states to abide fully by these resolutions.”
The measures include restrictions on arms transfers, missile development and proliferation-related activities. They had been lifted in 2015 when Iran agreed to curb its nuclear program under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The E3 said Iran had “exceeded all limits on its nuclear program” since 2019 and was now holding enriched uranium “48 times the JCPOA limit.”
According to a September 4 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran possesses 10 “significant quantities” of highly enriched uranium (HEU) outside of monitoring, an amount that “cannot exclude the possibility of manufacturing a nuclear explosive device.”
“Iran has no credible civilian justification whatsoever for its HEU stockpile,” the statement said. “No other country without a nuclear weapons program enriches uranium to such levels and at this scale.”
The ministers said they had made repeated efforts to avoid snapback, including invoking the JCPOA dispute resolution mechanism in 2020 and participating in talks aimed at restoring the deal in 2020 and 2021.
In July 2025, the E3 offered Iran a one-time extension of snapback if Tehran agreed to resume unconditional talks with Washington, return to compliance with its safeguards obligations and address its HEU stockpile. “Iran did not engage seriously with this offer,” they said.
On September 19, the UNSecurity Council rejected a resolution to maintain sanctions relief for Iran. “The outcome of the vote was an unambiguous no,” the ministers said, adding that the decision “sent a clear signal that all states must abide by their international commitments.”
The statement stressed that “the reimposition of UN sanctions is not the end of diplomacy.” It urged Tehran “to refrain from any escalatory action and to return to compliance with its legally binding safeguards obligations.”
France, Germany and the UK said they remained committed to working with all parties “towards a new diplomatic solution to ensure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.”
In a lengthy statement carried by state media, the ministry denounced Britain, France, Germany and the United States for “abusing” the dispute-resolution process in the 2015 nuclear deal and UN Security Council Resolution 2231 to bring back restrictions.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran rejects the claim of the three European countries and the United States regarding the return of previous resolutions that ended under Resolution 2231 in 2015, and emphasizes that no obligation is created for UN member states, including Iran,” the ministry said.
It added: “Any attempt to revive terminated resolutions is legally baseless, morally unacceptable and logically flawed.”
The foreign ministry said Resolution 2231, which endorsed the nuclear deal, must expire on October 18, 2025 as scheduled. “Resolution 2231 of the Security Council and its restrictions on Iran’s peaceful nuclear program should be deemed terminated on that date,” it said.
The ministry accused the Europeans of “gross non-performance” of their obligations under the 2015 deal while siding with the United States in military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites in June.
“By explicitly or implicitly supporting the military aggression of the Zionist regime and the United States against Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities … they flagrantly violated international law, the non-proliferation regime, and specifically Resolution 2231,” it said.
Iran also said European powers acted “in bad faith” by pushing a draft resolution through the Security Council despite opposition from other signatories, including Russia, China and Iran. “It is regrettable that despite the clear positions of other members of the JCPOA, the Council president illegally put the draft to a vote,” the statement said.
“Iran will vigorously defend the rights and interests of the Iranian nation, and any move to harm them will be met with an appropriate and decisive response,” the ministry warned.
Araghchi’s letter to the UN
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi separately wrote to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Security Council President Sang Jin Kim, saying the alleged return of sanctions “null and void.”
Echoing same arguments in the statement, Araghchi said, “We urge you to prevent any attempt to revive the sanctions mechanisms, including the Sanctions Committee and the Panel of Experts. None of the UN’s resources should be dedicated to supporting such illegal acts.”
Araghchi also argued that the European move was procedurally flawed. “The notification of the three European countries to trigger the so-called snapback mechanism is legally and procedurally defective, and thus null and void,” he wrote.
“They themselves defaulted on their commitments, misused the JCPOA dispute settlement process, and even justified military attacks against safeguarded nuclear facilities in Iran.”
In his letter, Araghchi also recalled past divisions in the Security Council, saying that in 2020 a similar US effort failed.
“This situation mirrors that of October 2020, when the United States illegally sought to trigger the so-called snapback mechanism. At that time, the president of the Security Council said in a letter dated August 25, 2020, that the Council was not in a position to act on the matter.”
“Subsequently, in a letter dated September 21, 2020, thirteen members confirmed that the US communication could not be considered a valid notification to initiate the snapback process under paragraph 11 of Resolution 2231, and therefore no automatic procedure was activated. In October 2020, the Secretary-General and the Secretariat likewise declined to implement or reimpose sanctions, citing divisions and lack of consensus within the Council.”
“The September 26, 2025 vote once again showed that the Council is divided and lacks consensus on restoring sanctions,” he said.
Araghchi stressed that restrictions must end permanently on October 18, 2025. “All nuclear-related restrictions under Resolution 2231 will end on that date. Iran will not recognize any effort to extend, revive or enforce them after that,” he said.
Blame on Europe and US
Elsewhere in the Sunday statement, the foreign ministry insisted that Iran had shown “repeated commitment to dialogue and diplomacy” since 2015, implementing the deal until a year after Washington’s withdrawal in 2018.
“Iran presented numerous proposals for the restoration of commitments or a new negotiated understanding, all of which failed due to the lack of seriousness and good faith of the Europeans and the US,” it said.
It also highlighted what it called “criminal aggression” by Israel and the US against its nuclear facilities in June. “These attacks … killed and wounded many Iranian citizens and destroyed nuclear facilities and vital infrastructure. Iran will use all available tools to prosecute and punish the perpetrators and demand compensation,” the ministry said.
Tehran concluded that Western states had chosen “confrontation and crisis-making” over diplomacy.
“The Europeans and the United States mistakenly believe they will gain new leverage by reviving terminated resolutions. History has proven this wrong, and will prove it again,” the statement said.
Pezeshkian, who left New York on Saturday empty-handed after failing to secure a deal with European powers, said the United States demanded Iran surrender its stock of highly enriched uranium in exchange for only 90 days of relief from UN sanctions.
“If we are to choose between the unreasonable demands of the Americans and the snapback, our choice is the snapback,” Pezeshkian said, hours before the return of UN sanctions.
Kamran Matin, professor of international relations at the University of Sussex, told Iran International that Iran’s leaders knew negotiations would not succeed because halting enrichment and surrendering the highly enriched uranium stockpiles would have meant “total surrender”—something that would have endangered the Islamic Republic’ cohesion.
US-based commentator Ali Afshari argued that the responsibility went beyond Pezeshkian, stressing that presidents do not determine Iran’s strategic policies.
“Those who peddled illusions in the 2024 presidential ‘quasi-election’ cannot hold only Masoud Pezeshkian responsible for the return of UN sanctions and the war,” he wrote on X, adding that reformists had misled voters by urging participation.
Hardliners claim vindication
The snapback of UN sanctions has emboldened Pezeshkian’s conservative rivals who staunchly opposed the 2015 nuclear deal.
After the UN vote, his hardline election rival Saeed Jalili wrote on X: “In 2015 they said JCPOA would completely lift sanctions but almost nothing (happened). Ten years of a nation’s life was wasted because of this political behavior.”
Ultra-hardline lawmaker Amirhossein Sabeti, a close ally of Jalili, echoed his remarks: the JCPOA “was a colonial and one-sided agreement that wasted ten years of the nation’s life, restricted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and ultimately, by proving the wisdom of the revolutionary camp that opposed it from the beginning, exposed the illusions of the pro-West faction.”
On social media, ultra-hardline users demanded prosecutions. One wrote: “The end of the disgraceful JCPOA—the greatest shame in the history of Iran’s politics—congratulations to patriotic compatriots and those who care for Iran, and condolences to reformists, centrists, moderates, and all traitors to the homeland. It is time that those responsible for this disgraceful agreement be put on trial for this unforgivable betrayal.”
Some voices in the reformist camp lamented the collapse. Azar Mansouri, head of the Reform Front, accused conservatives of political score-settling.
“They fought it for years and now celebrate its death. But returning to the pre-JCPOA era means sanctions, isolation, and more pressure on the people. What is there to celebrate?”
Disillusionment with Pezeshkian
Frustration has increasingly turned toward the president. One user recalled his campaign pledge: “Pezeshkian had promised that if he failed to achieve his goals, including lifting sanctions, he would resign. Why didn’t he rely on popular mobilization to achieve his aims? Why doesn’t he resign now?”
Others mocked his unkept promises. “From the beginning, pinning hopes on Pezeshkian to lift sanctions was wishful thinking,” one activist wrote. “Someone who couldn’t deliver on his promise of lifting internet filtering after a year cannot be expected to deliver on lifting sanctions… He had also promised to resign if his pledges were not fulfilled.”
Journalist Mohammad Aghazadeh faulted reformists for urging turnout: “They frightened us by saying if Jalili won, the JCPOA would collapse, and war would break out. Pezeshkian was elected, but sanctions returned, and war came too—and will come again.”
Activist Hossein Razzagh, who boycotted the election, wrote: “The only thing Pezeshkian is not committed to is the votes of those he lured to the ballot box with promises of lifting the shadow of war. The only thing he is committed to is the Leader!”
Journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi urged Pezeshkian to level with voters: “Most of the decisive factors lie beyond his control. But he must frankly explain to the people what his plan is… In fact, he entered the second round of the presidential election with the aim of saving us from Saeed Jalili’s program. Now he is compelled to play Mr. Jalili’s role himself!”
Political activist Motahereh Gounei summed up the wider sense of betrayal: “You celebrated that Jalili didn’t come and Pezeshkian did! The country was ruined, its resources and infrastructure destroyed, we got both war and negotiations!"
"Sanctions returned, the dollar reached 110,000 tomans, and now I, a young Iranian, am awaiting a prison sentence simply for writing about Khamenei’s incompetence in governance and policymaking," the activist said.
