The full complement of United Nations sanctions against Iran took effect, marking a critical escalation in the diplomatic confrontation over Tehran’s nuclear program.
The action on Sunday, mandated by the “snapback” provision within the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, restores measures lifted under the original agreement.
The re-imposition followed the decision by the European E-3 — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — to trigger the mechanism, citing Iran's sustained breaches of nuclear monitoring protocols and the intractable deadlock in broader negotiations with the U.S.
Crucially for Western powers, the snapback mechanism of the nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was designed to be veto-proof, circumventing opposition from Russia and China at the U.N. Security Council.
Final breakdown and recriminations
The formal restoration of sanctions was cemented by the 15-nation council's decision on Friday to reject a last-ditch resolution put forth by Russia and China aimed at delaying the snapback. The measure failed to gain the required support, with a final vote of 4-9 and two abstentions.
"We had hoped that European colleagues and the U.S. would think twice, and they would opt for the path of diplomacy and dialogue instead of their clumsy blackmail, which merely results in escalation of the situation in the region," Dmitry Polyanskiy, deputy Russian ambassador to the U.N., said after the vote.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian immediately denounced the council’s decision as “unfair, unjust and illegal.” Speaking on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Pezeshkian accused Washington and the E-3 of refusing to make a deal, claiming that U.S. delegates failed to attend a critical meeting with their Iranian and European counterparts this week.
"The U.S has betrayed diplomacy, but it is the E-3 which have buried it," added Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, shortly after the vote. The diplomatic efforts were reportedly constrained by earlier remarks from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who had referred to peace talks with the U.S. as "a sheer dead end."
Macroeconomic instability and social strain
The measures coming into force re-freeze Iranian assets abroad, enforce a prohibition on conventional arms deals, and mandate penalties targeting any development of Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities.
Iran registered its protest by recalling its ambassadors to the three triggering nations on Saturday. Tehran contended the E-3 lacks the standing to invoke snapback following the U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018. The snapback of these Security Council resolutions formally terminates the nuclear deal.
The sanctions strike an Iranian economy already grappling with macroeconomic instability. The Iranian rial currency has plummeted to a record low, directly fueling massive, inflation-driven price increases for essential goods.
Government figures reported overall annual inflation at 34.5% in June, with core food items rising over 50%. This surge, exacerbated by the fallout from the June war, has placed staple commodities, such as meat, rice, and dairy products, out of reach for large segments of the population.
The economic pressure compounds significant internal social stress. Local media have documented a sharp rise in psychological distress, attributed to the dual forces of price volatility and the persistent fear of renewed conflict.
Concurrently, human rights organizations report a severe tightening of political and civic space, with executions in 2025 estimated to exceed 1,000, a pace unseen since the 1988 mass executions.
Elevated proliferation threat
The regional crisis unfolds as the wider international arms control framework continues to fray. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres warned this week that the threat of nuclear weapons has escalated to its "highest levels in decades," delivering a stark message that "nuclear weapons deliver no security – only the promise of annihilation."
Data from the Federation of American Scientists indicates that while the total number of global warheads has declined to approximately 12,241 since the Cold War, the number in military stockpiles for operational use has increased to 9,614. Crucially, 3,912 of these are deployed with operational forces, with about 2,100 held by the U.S., Russia, U.K., and France on high alert.
The diplomatic confrontation with Iran is inextricably linked to its aggressive steps toward nuclear capacity. Iran maintains a stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% purity, a short technical step away from the 90% weapons-grade threshold. Analysts estimate this stockpile is already sufficient to yield several atomic bombs, should Tehran make a political decision to weaponize.
Despite previous threats, Pezeshkian said Iran would not withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — a step taken by North Korea in 2003 before it built atomic weapons. However, the risk profile has been intensified by Iran’s threats to terminate recent cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency following the snapback.
The good faith of these technical commitments remains highly uncertain. The risk profile had been previously intensified by Iran’s withdrawal from certain IAEA monitoring, which followed Israeli and U.S. military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites during the June conflict with Israel.
Moreover, missile sites targeted in June are reportedly undergoing reconstruction, suggesting an immediate preparation for potential regional hostilities involving Israel and possibly the U.S. However, IAEA inspectors are reportedly in Iran inspecting an undamaged site, despite the looming sanctions and threats of termination.
Kelsey Davenport, a nuclear expert at the Arms Control Association, stressed that Washington and Tehran must exercise restraint and focus on resuming negotiations once U.N. sanctions are snapped back.
"If both the United States and Iran seek to build pressure and leverage, there is a greater risk that a military conflict will re-erupt," she said.
Although restoration of JCPOA has not been a viable technical or political option for the past several years, she said, it did serve as a framework for negotiations.
"The end of the JCPOA era, however, is an opportunity for both sides to pursue creative, pragmatic options for a long-term agreement that recognizes Iran’s peaceful nuclear ambitions, while ensuring it is not used to build nuclear weapons."
