Russia Pushes Back Against European Sanctions on Iran

August 29, 2025

Russia has openly rejected a decision by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom to reactivate United Nations sanctions on Iran.

The three European powers, known as the E3, announced they would trigger the “snapback” mechanism of the 2015 nuclear deal, saying Iran has failed to meet its commitments.

The snapback process is a legal tool in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international nuclear agreement signed in 2015. It allows any participant in the deal to reinstate previous UN sanctions if another member is found to be violating the terms. For the E3, Iran’s continued uranium enrichment and its refusal to cooperate fully with UN inspectors are serious enough breaches to justify the action. Supporters of the move argue that without accountability, Iran’s nuclear program could advance unchecked.

Russia strongly disagrees. Moscow’s deputy ambassador to the UN, Dmitry Polyansky, criticized the E3 decision, calling it legally baseless and politically damaging. He used sharp language, saying the action looked more like the work of a “gangster band” than responsible diplomacy. Russia argues that the collapse of the deal began when the United States left the JCPOA in 2018, which, in Moscow’s view, undermines the Europeans’ authority to enforce the agreement today.

Diplomatic talks in Vienna earlier this month failed to produce progress. Iran continues to insist it has the right to develop its nuclear program for energy purposes, while Western nations fear the enrichment could move closer to producing weapons-grade material. The International Atomic Energy Agency has also reported gaps in Iran’s cooperation, further raising tensions.

Russia has proposed delaying the snapback for six months to allow for more negotiations. Russian officials say more time could prevent an escalation and give diplomacy another chance. European leaders, however, argue that Iran has already been given repeated warnings and that continued delays only weaken the credibility of international agreements.

If the snapback goes forward, sanctions that were lifted under the 2015 agreement would be reinstated. These include restrictions on arms sales, financial transactions, and travel bans on specific individuals linked to Iran’s nuclear program. Such measures would further isolate Iran at a time when its economy is already strained by existing U.S. sanctions.

The debate highlights the divide between Russia and the West over how to handle Iran. For Europe, the sanctions are meant to pressure Tehran into compliance. For Russia, the move risks escalating tensions in the Middle East and damaging international trust. The outcome will depend on whether the UN Security Council members unite behind the E3 or side with Moscow’s call for restraint.

Summary

Some see the snapback as more than just a diplomatic dispute—it reflects a deeper power struggle over who really controls the rules of international order. While Europe frames the move as a way to keep Iran in check, critics suggest it is also about maintaining Western leverage in the Middle East at a time when U.S. influence has waned. Russia’s sharp language underscores its view that the West is using legal tools as political weapons, punishing countries while ignoring its own past breaches of agreements, such as Washington’s withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018. For Iran, the standoff feeds into its narrative that Western powers apply double standards: nuclear-armed states can modernize their arsenals freely, while Iran is sanctioned for pursuing what it claims is peaceful energy development. In this light, the clash is less about nuclear fuel rods and more about who gets to define the boundaries of sovereignty in a multipolar world.