Hossein Saiedian, Ph.D., Professor
The University of Kansas
Background: The JCPOA and the Road to Isolation
The reactivation of United Nations sanctions on Iran; known as the “snapback” mechanism, marks a decisive defeat for the Iranian regime. It is not merely a diplomatic setback; it is the culmination of years of strategic misjudgment, ideological rigidity, and a relentless prioritization of regime survival over national interest. The snapback was not inevitable. It was foreseeable, preventable, and avoidable; had Tehran chosen reform over repression, regional peace over terrorism, diplomacy over defiance, and the people over power.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015, offered Iran a path to economic recovery and global reintegration in exchange for verifiable limits on its nuclear program. UN Security Council Resolution 2231 codified this agreement and included a “snapback” clause — a safeguard allowing any participant to reimpose sanctions if Iran violated its commitments (Wikipedia).
Following the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, the Iranian regime began systematically breaching the deal. It exceeded uranium enrichment limits, installed advanced centrifuges, and obstructed IAEA inspections. These violations were not tactical errors; they were deliberate provocations (UN Security Council).
The Snapback Mechanism. The snapback mechanism allows any JCPOA participant to notify the UN Security Council of Iran’s non-compliance. If no resolution is passed to continue sanctions relief within 30 days, all previously lifted sanctions are automatically reinstated. This process is designed to be veto-proof, ensuring that even opposition from permanent members like Russia or China cannot block it (European Council).
The implications are sweeping: the return of arms embargoes, restrictions on ballistic missile development, and bans on nuclear-related trade. Tehran is once again subject to the full weight of international sanctions, a diplomatic isolation that it worked hard to escape, only to squander through ideological obstinance.
The Iranian Regime’s Calculated Missteps
Tehran’s lreaders had multiple opportunities to avoid this outcome. European powers repeatedly urged Tehran to return to compliance. The IAEA offered technical pathways to transparency. Even after the U.S. withdrawal, diplomatic channels remained open. But the regime chose escalation.
This was not a failure of diplomacy; it was a rejection of diplomacy. The regime’s strategic calculus is rooted in survival, not reform. As highlighted in a Mojahedin analyses, internal debates within the regime revealed a deep fear of any concession that might empower civil society or weaken the Supreme Leader’s grip. The Mojahedin is the largest political organization and a pivotal member of the NCRI.
Instead of leveraging the JCPOA to build trust and prosperity, Tehran used it to buy time; time to expand its regional influence, develop missile capabilities, and suppress domestic dissent. The snapback is the price of that deception.
The snapback sanctions strike at the heart of the regime’s legitimacy. Internationally, Iran is once again seen as a rogue actor. Regionally, its adversaries are emboldened. Domestically, the regime faces growing unrest and elite fragmentation.
Mojahedin sources describe a regime in disarray, “a leadership paralyzed by fear, unable to reconcile its ideological rigidity with geopolitical reality”. The snapback has exposed the regime’s vulnerability, not its strength.
Economic Consequences for Iran and Its People
The economic fallout is devastating. Oil exports, Iran’s lifeline, are once again restricted. Foreign investment has dried up. The banking sector is isolated. Inflation is rampant, and the rial continues to collapse.
But the human cost is even more tragic. Ordinary Iranians face rising food prices, medicine shortages, and unemployment. The regime blames foreign powers, but the people know better. They see the billions spent on proxy wars in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. They see the corruption, the cronyism, and the brutal suppression of dissent.
Iran’s governance crisis is not just about inefficiency, it’s about deliberate misallocation. Despite domestic infrastructure failures, the regime has diverted tens of billions toward regional military ventures. Independent estimates suggest Iran has spent between $30–$50 billion supporting the Assad regime, while continuing to fund Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and other proxy groups. Billions more have gone into missile and nuclear development, all at the expense of public welfare.
As one Mojahedin report put it, “The regime’s economic policy is not mismanagement, it is deliberate neglect of the people in favor of the elite” (source).
Implications for the Iranian Resistance and Democratic Prospects
Paradoxically, the snapback may empower the Iranian resistance. As the regime weakens under pressure, civil society gains space to organize. The diaspora, long active in advocating for change, finds renewed momentum. International attention returns to Iran’s internal struggles — not just its nuclear file.
The breadth of this diaspora support was powerfully demonstrated in New York City on September 23rd and 24th. During the UN General Assembly, massive Iranian-American demonstrations, described by many media outlets as “a sea of people,” gathered to protest the regime’s presence and affirm support for international efforts to isolate the current rulers. This gathering mirrors the deep, widespread discontent of the Iranian people and gives voice to their demand for democratic change.
Mojahedin sources highlight growing fissures within the regime and rising support for democratic alternatives. “The snapback is not just a sanction, it is a signal that the world is ready to engage with the Iranian people, not just their rulers”.
Despite the hardship, there is hope. The Iranian people have shown extraordinary resilience — from the large gathering in 2008 to the 2022 protests sparked by Mahsa Amini’s death. Each wave of dissent chips away at the regime’s facade of invincibility.
The snapback creates diplomatic and moral leverage for the international community to support democratic change. It reminds Iranians that their struggle is not forgotten. With unity, vision, and courage, they can seize this moment to demand accountability, freedom, and a government that serves the people — not itself.
Strategically, snapback sanctions may also limit the regime’s ability to fund its regional warmongering, arm race, and terrorism. Analysts argue that renewed sanctions could constrain Tehran’s capacity to project power beyond its borders, potentially contributing to regional stability. This shift could further empower domestic movements by weakening the regime’s external leverage and exposing its internal vulnerabilities.
The economic fallout is devastating. This deliberate financial destruction is compounded by internal betrayal. While Iran’s economy possesses immense capacity, with 2024 oil and gas revenues estimated at a staggering $78 billion and a GDP of almost $440 billion, these macroeconomic figures utterly mask a state of national destitution. Despite ranking among the top 25 countries in PPP-adjusted income, nearly half the population lives below the poverty line, inflation hovers around 50%, and unemployment affects millions. The regime does not lack resources; it lacks legitimacy and humanity. It chooses to divert tens of billions toward regional military ventures—supporting the Assad regime, Hezbollah, and other proxies—while simultaneously plunging its own citizens into perpetual crisis.
The Snapback Verdict: Inevitability and the Final Reckoning
The snapback sanctions are not merely a diplomatic mechanism; they are a global verdict against a regime that cemented its fate by choosing repression over reform, terrorism and warmongering over regional stability, defiance over diplomacy, and survival of the elite over service to the people.
This failure is the Iranian resistance’s opportunity. As the regime’s international legitimacy crumbles and its domestic foundations fracture, the hardship imposed by sanctions simultaneously weakens its capacity for both regional adventurism and internal suppression. The world must now recognize this pivotal moment: the external pressure of sanctions, combined with the extraordinary resilience and unity of the Iranian people, has created the conditions for profound change.
The time for diplomatic compromise with Tehran’s rulers is over. The era of appeasement with Tehran’s rulers has ended. Now is the moment to stand firmly with the Iranian people, their organized Resistance, and their demand for a democratic future. The alternative is clear: the NCRI, committed to building a free, secular, non-nuclear Iran where sovereignty belongs solely to the people.