TEHRAN – Etemad hastily considered Europe to send a letter to the UN Security Council to invoke a snapback mechanism in an interview with the expert on international affairs Rahman Gallemanpur.
He said: Europe will probably have two reasons to send a letter to the Security Council on Thursday to activate the snapback mechanism. From an optimistic perspective, this action can be seen as a European attempt to provide an opportunity to seek diplomacy and provide more opportunities to guide Iran to find diplomatic solutions. In this regard, sending letters on Thursday instead of Saturday (end of August) will create a two-day opportunity that can be used in the diplomatic process if Iran responds proactively. But from a pessimistic perspective, the rush of Europeans could be focused on their frustration with the outcome of last Tuesday’s meeting and their firm resolve to invoke a snapback mechanism. In this regard, if you send a letter to the United Nations two days ago, you will receive a message indicating that Europe cannot hesitate to implement a snapback mechanism and if their requests are not met, they will act without hesitation.
Javan: Iran acts on multiple sides, maintaining the right to protect itself
In the analysis, Javan examined Western approach to Iran’s nuclear issue. It said: Activating snapback mechanisms after the direct US attack on nuclear infrastructure in a 12-day war is a repetition of excuses and demonstration of a new political game by the West. However, Iran has the right to oppose these excuses and defend its nuclear rights (under the NPT). One of these measures is to spend Western-subjectives on activities against Iran. The plans under consideration in Congress will include Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT, halting negotiations between the US and three European countries, and ending supervisory cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The activation of the snapback shows that Iran’s transparent cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency on nuclear activity did not provide effective benefits for Tehran. And today, institutions that have become American intelligence tools in Iran’s nuclear operations are urgently calling for a return to the country. Therefore, refusing to cooperate with an institution would harm the United States and, as a result, put the institution in a difficult position.
Sharg: I have no choice but to work next month
In an interview with political expert Abolghasem Delfi, Shargh considered a 30-day deadline to prevent the snapback mechanism from being activated. He said: Over the past 20 years, Europeans have always considered themselves to have the most rights and greatest influence in nuclear consultations. Europeans are trying to enhance their diplomatic influence through snapback mechanisms. The remaining months will be crucial to Iran’s status in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its involvement with the United States. Most of the current issues can be resolved if Iran and the agency can reach an understanding to assess the nuclear situation and present acceptable reports. Future conditions include two periods. The first period is one month. This is a diplomatic opportunity to determine the challenges of cooperation between the institution and uranium stockpile. And the second period after this period will be the revival of sanctions and the activation of snapback mechanisms that will increase the likelihood of further tensions and military threats. A 30-day deadline to prevent the activation of the snapback mechanism means that all efforts should be used to neutralize the anti-Iran movement by European troika.
Arman-e-Melli: Illegal conduct and political excuses
In its commentary, the Arman-e-Melli newspaper states that Europeans who are passive towards breaching the 2015 nuclear deal violation (since 2018) have therefore no legal right to invoke a snapback mechanism. Westerners have always tried to follow the policy of pressure and threat. Meanwhile, they fundamentally rejected and ignored Iran’s logical and verified actions under the nuclear agreement (2015). It must be noted that the Europeans in the letter to the Security Council threw the ball into an Iranian court to make Iran feel guilty. However, it is clear that Europe has been in a completely inaction for the past seven years and essentially does not have the legal right to cause a snapback mechanism. Writing a letter to the UN Security Council to stimulate snapback is a political move. It is still unclear whether Europeans will continue this wrong move or change course. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how the Security Council will address the issue.