France, Germany and Britain sent a letter to members of the UN Security Council on Thursday announcing that they would activate the “snapback” mechanism to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran.
According to the letter sent to the UN Security Council, France, Germany and Britain called on Iran to engage in constructive diplomacy to resolve concerns about its nuclear program.
The letter states, “The three European countries are committed to using all available diplomatic tools to ensure that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon.”
According to the Iranian Foreign Ministry statement, this unjustified action, which is contrary to the Dispute Resolution Mechanism (DRM) in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is an illegal and unjustified attempt to restore repealed resolutions and is clearly in violation of Resolution 2231 (2015): “As emphasized in numerous previous correspondences with the United Nations Security Council, the three European countries have no legal or moral authority to resort to the so-called ‘snapback’ mechanism; therefore, their announcement is invalid, null and void, and devoid of any legal effect.”
To know more about the issue, the TABNAK reached out to TABNAK reached out to Marc Finaud a senior advisor and associate fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) and former French Foreign Ministry spoksman.
Here is the full text of his interview:
Three European countries—Britain, France, and Germany—initiated the process of activating the snapback mechanism in a letter to the United Nations Security Council. As Iran's nuclear facilities were destroyed in an attack by Israel and the United States, so the danger of Iran being on the ‘nuclear threshold’ is not relevant, why did they take such action?
The E3 statement refers to "significant non-performance of (Iran's) commitments, meaning all the measures taken by Iran since the 2018 US withdrawal from the JCPOA, including 60% enrichment of uranium and suspension of the ratification of the Additional Protocol. It therefore applies to past actions and not to a current risk of weaponization of Iran's nuclear program, severely reduced by the Israeli and US strikes.
The letter from the three European countries to the Security Council stated that if Iran enters negotiations within the 30 days before the snapback is activated, they will refrain from enforcing it. Do you think the developments will unfold in such a way that they will abandon its implementation?
This timeframe is a direct result of the 2015 UN Security Council resolution. The 30-day period is a last chance to solve this dispute before previous UN sanction resolutions are automatically reinstated. It is a strong incentive for effective negotiations.
Europe had previously set three conditions for not activating the snapback mechanism including direct talks between Iran and the United States, providing an estimate of the amount of 60% enriched uranium, and Iran's cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Is it possible that some of these conditions be dependant on Iran-U.S. negotiations?
Most of those actions depend on Iranian decisions, but of course the US also needs to demonstrate that it is ready to resume bilateral negotiations towards a comprehensive agreement. The 30-day period may be too short, this is why one option could be to extend the mechanism for several months.
By activating the snapback mechanism, E3 effectively enters potential negotiations between Iran and the United States and holds leverage for necessary concessions. What is your assessment?
The US, having withdrawn from the JCPOA, could not activate the snapback mechanism, so the Europeans are doing this. They insist that they remained participants to the agreement and tried to restore it, mediating between the US and Iran although unsuccessfully. They realize that the US has a critical role to play to achieve a diplomatic solution that would prevent other military strikes, but they certainly would prefer a multilateral, legitimate resolution that would avoid sidelining them, especially if all sanctions are lifted and prospects of trade relations with Iran are improved.
How will the United States utilize activation of the ‘snapback’ in potential negotiations with Iran?
The US is benefiting from the strong pressure on Iran to resume bilateral negotiations with the US. However, chances of successful negotiations will be increased if Washington clarified its position regarding "zero enrichment" which it knows is unacceptable to Tehran.
