In the lead-up to the June 2025 session of the IAEA Board of Governors, clear signs have emerged of a multi-layered coordination between the US, the E3 (France, Germany, and the UK), and the Agency aimed at exerting targeted pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran. The biased report by the IAEA Director General, coupled with the unexpected submission of a written US proposal following five rounds of negotiations without any formal offer, suggests the existence of a pre-planned scenario meant to exploit legal and technical mechanisms for political purposes. The goal does not appear to be the revival of the nuclear agreement, but rather to coerce Iran into accepting a deal which—though its details remain undisclosed—is likely to lack balance and fairness given the US's reliance on indirect pressure tactics.
Snapback: From Political Threat to Legal Constraint
One key element of the US’s new pressure strategy is the threat of reactivating the “snapback” mechanism through its European allies. While snapback is portrayed in Western media as a serious and deterrent instrument, the legal and sanctions-related realities suggest otherwise. US unilateral sanctions in recent years have far exceeded the scope of those previously lifted by the UN Security Council, meaning that reimposing multilateral sanctions would bring little to no additional economic or trade leverage for the West.
Nonetheless, the significance of the snapback lies more in its legal implications and the potential to delegitimize Iran’s nuclear status. Reinstating UN sanctions could cast a shadow over Iran’s international cooperation in areas like nuclear technology, banking, aviation, insurance, and tech exchanges. However, it's critical to note that many of these restrictions have already been imposed via US secondary sanctions. Thus, the snapback threat functions more effectively as a psychological and legal lever than as an economic one. And this is precisely where the West seeks to reengineer new pressure from an obsolete tool.
Written Proposal and Grossi’s Report: A Timed Play
The US's presentation of a written proposal just before the IAEA Board meeting—after five rounds of talks without a single formal offer—was certainly no coincidence. Alongside the release of Grossi’s biased report, this move forms part of a coordinated effort to increase psychological, legal, and political pressure on Tehran. Grossi, relying on unverified information, including alleged data from the Israeli regime, attempts to portray Iran’s nuclear program as a crisis. This is precisely the narrative the US needs to advance its new plan: Iran cast as defensive, the West posing as a "benevolent mediator," and the Agency assuming the role of a "neutral arbiter."
In reality, any proposal presented in such a context—regardless of its technical or seemingly neutral appearance—is inevitably bound to contain imbalanced and unfair elements, because it emerges not from constructive engagement and trust-building but from indirect coercion. While the contents of this proposal remain undisclosed, its carefully timed release underscores an attempt to maximize political leverage.
Iran’s Red Lines Remain Intact: No to Imposed Agreements
The Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly made it clear that accepting an imposed agreement under threats and coercion is unacceptable. The Leader has explicitly stated that "nuclear weapons have no place in Iran's defense doctrine," while also affirming that the Iranian nation’s legitimate rights, including the right to uranium enrichment, are non-negotiable. From this perspective, any proposal introduced under the shadow of snapback threats cannot form the basis for a mutually beneficial solution or a win-win outcome.
It is also worth noting that despite the adoption of the politically motivated resolution in November 2024, Iran continued its broad cooperation with the Agency under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. However, exploiting this goodwill to build a hostile narrative against Iran would mark the end of Tehran's strategic patience.
Exploiting Obsolete Tools Signals Strategic Deadlock in the West
Faced with Iran’s legal and technical resilience, the West is attempting to apply indirect pressure through tools like snapback and Grossi’s political reports. Yet the reality is that these instruments have either lost their effectiveness or are rapidly becoming obsolete. The snapback threat, now reissued, holds little economic weight and serves only as a legal tactic to disrupt ongoing cooperation.
What we are witnessing is an effort to revive a spent threat and use it as leverage to impose an unfair agreement. But rather than facilitating an agreement, this approach will only lead to more complex legal and diplomatic confrontations. The responsibility for the consequences of such behavior lies squarely with its architects.
NOURNEWS