Tehran – Iran’s Deputy Minister of Law and International Foreign Affairs, Kazem Galibabadi, condemned the potential European efforts to induce snapback mechanisms as “completely bold” acts, warning that it would significantly suppress speeches with European counterparts and induce proportional measurements.
In an interview aired on Sunday, Gallibabadi announced the sharp responsibilities of the UK, France and Germany (E3), challenging the legal validity of the snapback mechanism to revive UN Security Council sanctions and effectively eliminate the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA).
“The US left the JCPOA in 2018, and E3 failed to maintain a single pledge. It is totally bold for them to blame Iran for the violation,” he said.
He further warned that activating the snapback would eliminate the remaining diplomatic space, including negotiations on sanctions relief.
Galibabadi reiterated Iran’s longstanding position that snapbacks are a compulsory tool that is designed to revive sanctions, with snapbacks designed to be a lack of legitimacy.
He confirmed that Tehran was preparing for the E3 move. If Europe progresses, Iran will treat it as a “hostile violation” of the JCPOA and will raise measures under Article X of the NPT. Such steps could halt the IAEA protection measures and accelerate enrichment beyond the JCPOA limits.
The Deputy Minister also picked out the E3 for “biased support” of the Israeli regime during the recent attack on Iran, claiming it would “deter their own credibility.”
Iran rejected the UN Security Council snapback mechanism under Solution 2231 as an unlawful enforcement measure designed to revive the outdated sanctions it has already circumvented through economic resilience.
Tehran has long warned that attempts to invoke the UK, France and Germany to snap backs will be met with robust and proportional measures, relationships with the lowest points and risk future consultations.
High officials, including Minister of Politics and Foreign Affairs, Majid Takuto Ravanch, have shown that the snapback trigger could encourage withdrawal from the NPT based on X, halt the IAEA’s safeguards and allow for enrichment of JCPOA restrictions as a legal measure.
“We used a minimal missile.”
Looking back at the Israeli regime’s 12-day war with Iran, Galibabadi described it as Tehran’s strategic victory.
He argued that the Israeli regime’s goals extended beyond nuclear facilities to change of government and systematic collapse.
“Looking this way, as is true, victory or defeat should not be determined not just by statistics, but by whether the strategic goal has been achieved,” he said.
Despite the losses, Iran took a big blow. “We have also caused great damage to the Zionist regime,” he noted, pointing to censorship of the impact on Israeli strikes while Iranian media was openly broadcasting the loss.
He emphasized Iran’s restraint. “Who would believe that the Zionist regime, which defeated so many Arab countries in the six-day war, engaged in a 12-day war and did not win?” asked Galibabadi.
“We weren’t using a lot of advanced military equipment yet. We had minimal missiles deployed.”
After the conflict, Iranian national unity has skyrocketed, countering Israel’s efforts to alienate us and our people. “After 12 days of war, we are witnessing unity and national unity,” he said.
Galibabadi emphasized the strengthening of Iran’s regional status, and the Muslim state now sees the Israeli regime as a major threat.
“They couldn’t believe the country could put this government there. “We never sought a ceasefire. Our resolve to continue our defense remained unshakable.”
Under the attack that “funny meaningless”
Gallibabadi also addressed the recent US diplomatic message in search of a return to negotiations, revealing that Washington is ready for talks “from the start of the (Israel administration) attacks.”
He confirmed that Foreign Minister Abbas Araguchi received and widely contextualized these overtures, which underscored Washington’s “desire to resume the diplomatic process.”
However, Galibabadi emphasized Iran’s strategic refusal to negotiate while under attack: “Divisionary discussions during these 12 days of conflict was fundamentally pointless.”
While acknowledging that “diplomacy is an important tool even during the war,” he emphasized Tehran’s clear stance.
The statement reinforces Iran’s longstanding policy of refusing to be involved under coercion. Gharibabadi described US outreach as an implicit recognition of diplomatic urgency, in contrast to Iran’s compliance with disciplined principles, saying, “Our position was clear.