Snapback as Leverage: Eastern Support for Iran Hardens—And the Geopolitics Shift
Tehran - BORNA - The failure of a U.N. Security Council draft to extend sanctions relief for Iran did not leave a vacuum. Instead, it accelerated confrontation. With that text blocked, Britain, France, and Germany have moved to trigger the “snapback” mechanism—a tool meant to automatically restore prior U.N. restrictions against Tehran. In Western capitals, snapback is framed as necessary pressure. Across the East and Global South, it is seen as coercion without consensus. Russia, China, Pakistan, Cuba, and others have already said openly they will not recognize its legitimacy.
This widening rift is not only about Iran’s nuclear file—it is reshaping global alignments.
What happened at the Council
On 19 September, the Security Council failed to adopt a draft resolution that would have prolonged the timetable for sanctions relief under the 2015 nuclear deal. The European trio quickly declared that they would proceed with snapback. Moscow and Beijing rejected the move as a political maneuver, not a neutral legal procedure. Pakistan, Algeria, and Cuba followed with strong statements rejecting the legitimacy of punitive measures that bypass consensus.
Russia’s foreign ministry called the E3 approach “provocative and unlawful,” stressing that snapback “has nothing to do with diplomacy” and risks “driving the Middle East into another catastrophe.” China echoed that line, insisting that unilateral pressure “erodes the authority of the Security Council and undermines international law.”
Eastern calculus and solidarity
Eastern support is not an emotional defense of Iran. It stems from clear strategic logic:
Rule-setting: Accepting snapback without consensus would create a precedent that major powers can impose coercive measures without due process.
Connectivity: China’s Belt and Road investments, Pakistan’s role as a regional transit hub, and Iran’s geography as a land bridge make stability in Tehran a shared interest.
Energy: Continued Chinese purchases of Iranian oil and joint infrastructure projects mean that a sanctions cascade directly threatens long-term supply security.
Pakistan has underscored its own position through official statements from both the Prime Minister and Defense Minister, calling any attempt to criminalize Iran’s defense of sovereignty “unacceptable.”
Egyptian think tank perspective
The Cairo-based analytical center Rawaq has gone further, framing the current alignment as a historic shift. In a recent report titled “Eastern Support for Iran: Dimensions of Chinese and Pakistani Backing,” the center argued: “The Eastern convergence around Iran is not a tactical gesture. It reflects decades of intertwined strategic interests, from the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor to Iran’s energy infrastructure. What worries Western capitals is that this convergence could redraw the regional and even global geopolitical map.”
The report stressed that Beijing’s political shield—blocking condemnations at the U.N. and urging a return to the JCPOA—combined with Islamabad’s open rejection of snapback resolutions, reveals a joint calculation: any severe weakening of Iran risks destabilizing Eurasian corridors, threatening megaprojects, and triggering a rebalancing of power.
Snapback’s legitimacy gap
Even declared, snapback is not a magic switch. Implementation depends on universal cooperation, and many capitals simply will not comply. Divergence among importers, insurers, and shippers will blur enforcement. What emerges is not decisive leverage, but a longer standoff that undermines the very institution—multilateral diplomacy—meant to manage nuclear disputes.
The backlash is growing. From Moscow and Beijing to Havana and Islamabad, governments are rejecting the automaticity of sanctions. As the Rawaq report concluded: “This axis of support is born not only of solidarity with Iran but of fear that the collapse of Iranian stability would unleash unpredictable geopolitical consequences.”
Europe’s narrowing space
For Europe, snapback might look like leverage. In practice, it erodes diplomatic space, hardens Tehran’s negotiating line, and drives Iran further toward Eastern partnerships. It also sends a damaging message to the Global South: that Europe cannot act independently of Washington and prefers coercion to dialogue.
The risk is that Europe, by overreaching, loses the very influence it seeks to maintain. In contrast, Eastern states position themselves as protectors of international law, defenders of sovereign rights, and reliable partners for Iran.
The bottom line
Snapback has been triggered, but its legitimacy is fiercely contested. The divide is not only West versus Iran; it is West versus much of the East and South. As the Egyptian Rawaq center observed, this convergence could “redraw the geopolitical map.” For Iran, that means greater strategic depth. For Europe, it means shrinking diplomatic leverage. And for the international system, it signals a shift toward a multipolar order where coercion without consensus no longer carries automatic weight.
End Article