Snapback sanctions on Iran expose the West’s hypocrisy

The reinstatement of United Nations sanctions on Iran this week, triggered by the “snapback” mechanism under the 2015 nuclear deal, is being sold to the world as a necessary step to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is nothing of the sort. It is the latest act in a decades-long campaign to deny Iran its sovereign right to peaceful nuclear energy and to keep the Global South firmly in its place.

The new sanctions took effect after talks collapsed and following Israeli and US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June. They bar all dealings linked to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic activities, reviving resolutions that had been suspended under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Iran has rightly denounced the measures as “legally baseless and unjustifiable,” warning that attempts to undermine its rights will face a “firm and appropriate response.” President Masoud Pezeshkian called Washington’s offer of a brief sanctions reprieve in exchange for Iran surrendering its entire stockpile of enriched uranium “unacceptable” and it is. What sovereign state would hand over its technological progress in exchange for the temporary easing of an economic chokehold?

Much of the Western world continues to speak as though Iran stands on the brink of building a nuclear bomb. It is a convenient fiction that sustains the logic of coercion. The reality is very different. Iran remains a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has consistently allowed inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into its facilities. Its enrichment levels, though increased since the collapse of the JCPOA, remain below the 90% threshold required for weapons-grade uranium. That simple fact is rarely acknowledged in Western capitals because it undermines the narrative of imminent threat on which sanctions policy depends.

This is not about non-proliferation; it is about power. The nuclear order is defined by a profound double standard. Iran is punished and surveilled for pursuing peaceful nuclear capabilities under international law, while Israel, widely understood to possess a nuclear arsenal faces no scrutiny at all. Israel has never signed the NPT and remains outside its inspection regime. Yet it is treated as a responsible stakeholder, while Iran, which has abided by the treaty’s terms, is cast as a rogue. The message is unmistakable: nuclear capability is acceptable for allies of the West but intolerable for those who refuse to fall in line. It is not the technology that is policed, but the politics.

The JCPOA was meant to bridge this divide. Iran agreed to some of the most stringent restrictions ever imposed on a nuclear programme: enrichment capped at 3.67%, stockpiles drastically reduced, centrifuges dismantled, and constant international inspections. In return, sanctions were to be lifted. The arrangement worked, until it was sabotaged not by Tehran, but by Washington. In 2018, then-President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the deal despite Iran’s verified compliance and reimposed sweeping sanctions designed to crush the Iranian economy. Tehran initially upheld its obligations, hoping Europe would honour its commitments. When that support failed to materialise, it began cautiously scaling back.

This context matters, because the snapback sanctions are not a response to Iranian aggression. They are punishment for Iran’s refusal to capitulate to an unjust system. Western powers are now demanding even deeper concessions while maintaining maximum pressure. They call this diplomacy. It is not. It is the language of domination dressed up as negotiation. It is precisely why Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has dismissed the US’s demands as “nonsense” and why Iranian officials insist that Washington must prove its sincerity before any new agreement is possible.

Iran’s scepticism is not paranoia; it is historical memory. Libya dismantled its nuclear programme in 2003 under US and British persuasion, only for its leader to be overthrown and the country plunged into chaos less than a decade later. Tehran understands the lesson: sovereignty is surrendered at great peril, and Western promises are only as good as their next election cycle.

The latest sanctions also reveal the deeply political nature of international law. Russia has already said it will not enforce them, calling the move evidence of “the West’s policy of sabotaging constructive solutions and extracting unilateral concessions through blackmail.” Whether one agrees with Moscow or not, the point stands. Legal mechanisms are selectively invoked against adversaries while allies are shielded from accountability. Israel’s nuclear opacity is ignored. The United States’ withdrawal from the JCPOA, a breach of a UN-endorsed agreement, went unpunished. Yet Iran is condemned for insisting on rights explicitly guaranteed under the NPT.

At its core, this is about sovereignty, the right of a nation to determine its own path without subjugation to imperial interests. Iran’s nuclear programme is not an existential threat to the world. It is a symbol of self-determination in a system that punishes states for asserting independence. The West’s obsession with Tehran’s capabilities is less about centrifuges and uranium and more about the fear of a Global South nation refusing to bow to the hierarchies of power that have long defined the international order.

None of this is to suggest that a nuclear-armed Iran would be desirable. It would not. However, preventing that outcome requires honesty and reciprocity, not threats and sanctions. Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy is enshrined in international law. Any meaningful agreement must recognise that right, provide verifiable sanctions relief, and offer firm guarantees against unilateral betrayal. Anything less will only reinforce Iran’s conviction that the West is not interested in peace, but in permanent subordination.

The snapback sanctions do not make the world safer. They deepen mistrust, entrench inequality, and push the region closer to the brink. They send a chilling message to the rest of the Global South; that sovereignty is conditional, law is selective, and defiance will be punished. That message, far more than Iran’s nuclear ambitions, is the real threat to global stability.

By Chloe Maluleke

Associate at the BRICS+ Consulting Group

Russian & Middle Eastern Specialist 

** MORE ARTICLES ON OUR WEBSITE https://bricscg.com/

** Follow https://x.com/brics_daily on X/Twitter for daily BRICS+ updates