Rubio urges Iran to accept direct talks with US

All UN sanctions suspended under the 2015 deal with Iran snapped back into force at 8 pm Eastern Time on September 27, one month after European powers triggered the so-called "snapback" mechanism.

The sanctions, first imposed between 2006 and 2010 under six Security Council resolutions, were suspended in 2015 when Resolution 2231 endorsed the nuclear deal (JCPOA).

They covered arms embargoes, travel bans, financial restrictions, prohibitions on nuclear- and missile-related activity and the freezing of assets belonging to designated individuals and entities.

Resolution 2231 set an October 18, 2025 deadline after which many restrictions were due to expire unless a so-called "snapback" mechanism was triggered.

On August 28, 2025, Britain, France and Germany (the E3) triggered the mechanism citing Iran's failure to comply with its nuclear obligations, beginning a 30-day process that culminated in the sanctions' return.

Read more

The sanctions, first imposed between 2006 and 2010 under six Security Council resolutions, were suspended in 2015 when Resolution 2231 endorsed the nuclear deal (JCPOA).

They covered arms embargoes, travel bans, financial restrictions, prohibitions on nuclear- and missile-related activity and the freezing of assets belonging to designated individuals and entities.

Resolution 2231 set an October 18, 2025 deadline after which many restrictions were due to expire unless a so-called "snapback" mechanism was triggered.

On August 28, 2025, Britain, France and Germany (the E3) triggered the mechanism citing Iran's failure to comply with its nuclear obligations, beginning a 30-day process that culminated in the sanctions' return.

Why it matters

The return of UN sanctions is expected to hit Iran hard, even though it already faces sweeping US and EU measures.

The difference is that UN sanctions carry international legitimacy, compelling broader compliance by governments, insurers and banks worldwide.

Even if unilateral or secondary sanctions are eased, UN restrictions would remain in force and shape global behavior unless a new Security Council resolution overturns them.

The impact will extend beyond oil and finance, raising trade finance costs, shipping insurance premiums and currency volatility.

Which resolutions are being reimposed?

• 1696 (2006): Demanded Iran suspend enrichment; urged states to block nuclear or missile-related transfers.
• 1737 (2006): Banned supply of nuclear and missile technologies, froze assets of designated entities and imposed travel monitoring.
• 1747 (2007): Banned Iranian arms exports, expanded asset freezes and urged states and IFIs not to extend loans or financial aid beyond humanitarian needs.
• 1803 (2008): Authorized cargo inspections, tightened banking oversight, added designations and restricted dual-use nuclear items.
• 1835 (2008): Reaffirmed previous measures without adding new ones.
• 1929 (2010): The most sweeping pre-JCPOA resolution, it:
  • Expanded an arms embargo to heavy conventional weapons.
  • Restricted shipping, insurance and financial services linked to nuclear and missile activity.
  • Prohibited Iran from investing abroad in sensitive industries.
  • Effectively blocked new foreign investment in oil and gas fields.
  • Created an expert panel to monitor compliance.

What’s the impact?

Reinstated sanctions will directly undermine Iran’s ability to export crude, attract investment and finance its energy sector.

Resolution 1929 is especially damaging, as it restricts shipping insurance and financial services essential for oil exports while deterring foreign energy companies.

Banking restrictions from Resolutions 1737, 174 and 1803 complicate oil sales and payments, cutting revenues. Lower government income will limit Tehran’s fiscal capacity, straining subsidies, salaries, and social programs.

Beyond oil, sanctions will intensify inflationary pressures, weaken the rial and increase transaction costs across supply chains.

The private sector will face new hurdles in accessing raw materials, technology, and international banking, compounding Iran’s broader economic crisis.

"Saudi Arabia affirms that a diplomatic track is the way to address the issue of Iran's nuclear program and calls for positive engagement in negotiations and cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency," Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan told the UN General Assembly on Saturday.

“They demanded that we hand over all our enriched uranium and in exchange they give us a temporary relief of 90 days, which is absolutely unacceptable,” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Saturday.

“If we are to choose between the unreasonable demands of the Americans and the snapback, our choice is the snapback,” Pezeshkian added, hours before the return of UN sanctions against Tehran.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also said Saturday that "the three European countries and the United States expected Iran to give up all its nuclear material or hand it over to them, in exchange for delaying the activation of the snapback mechanism by three or six months."

"This is the height of a brazen approach toward us, and we will not submit to such humiliation," Araghchi told Iran's state TV. "Iran will not accept the humiliating pressure over snapback."

The fate of Iran’s highly enriched uranium (HEU) stockpile of 400 kg (882 pounds) remains under investigation, while Tehran claims it is trapped under rubble after US attacks on three nuclear sites in June.

After triggering the so-called snapback mechanism on August 28, the Europeans asked Iran to address concerns over the highly enriched uranium stockpile, cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog, and engage in talks with the United States.

Iran accuses US of swaying Europeans

While talks with European leaders had produced some convergence, Washington’s stance remained irreconcilable, Pezeshkian said upon arrival in Tehran after a visit to New York.

"On the snapback mechanism, we apparently reached an agreement with Europe, but when they spoke with the United States, they came up with various excuses."

Barbara Slavin, a longtime Iran analyst, wrote in a post on X that Pezeshkian told a private meeting France had floated a similar idea, proposing Iran hand over its enriched uranium in return for just one month’s extension.

The so-called snapback mechanism stems from UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It allows any participant to reimpose sanctions if Iran is judged in “significant non-performance.”

The United States, Britain, France and Germany argue that Iran’s growing uranium stockpile and failure to resolve International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concerns meet that threshold.

A May 2025 IAEA safeguards report concluded Iran had concealed activities, sanitized sites, and retained undeclared nuclear materials, leading to its referral to the Security Council. The vote has now restored suspended measures.

On September 23, Iran's Supreme Leader reiterated that Tehran does not need and seek to develop nuclear weapons, so it enriches uranium to up to 60% purity, unlike nuclear-armed countries that enrich it up to 90% purity.

"The threat of new strikes on Iran remains and as informed sources say, is even being discussed in practical terms," Russia's foreign minister said Saturday, calling it "quite indicative."

He said the military threat is synchronized with what he called a Western plan to economically "strangulate" Iran, citing their rejection of a Russian-Chinese bid to delay the snapback of sanctions.

"This is a deliberate operation aimed at starting the next stage of strangling the Islamic Republic of Iran economically, financially and so on," Sergei Lavrov told reporters in New York, according to Interfax.