Iran judiciary warns of legal action against those stoking fear over sanctions

“Today, the Council agreed to reimpose a number of restrictive measures in relation to Iran's nuclear proliferation activities, that had then been suspended with the entry into force of the Joint Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran nuclear deal) in 2015,” the Council of the EU said in a press release.

The decision followed the reintroduction of UN sanctions after the Security Council declined to extend relief, triggered on August 28 when France, Germany and the United Kingdom (the E3) said Iran was in “significant non-performance” of its commitments.

The Council said the measures include both UN Security Council sanctions adopted since 2006 and EU autonomous measures. They cover:

- Travel bans and asset freezes for listed individuals and entities, and a prohibition on providing funds or economic resources.

- Economic and financial sanctions, spanning trade, banking and transport.

- Trade restrictions, including bans on imports and transport of Iranian crude oil, natural gas, petrochemical and petroleum products; the sale of energy equipment, gold, precious metals, diamonds, certain naval equipment and software.

- Financial sector measures, including freezing assets of the Central Bank of Iran and major commercial banks.

- Transport restrictions, reinstating measures to bar Iranian cargo flights from EU airports and prohibit maintenance or servicing of Iranian cargo aircraft or vessels carrying prohibited materials.

The Council stressed these steps followed earlier commitments. “In October 2015 the Council adopted declaration 2015/C 345/01 lifting all EU nuclear-related sanctions in accordance with the JCPOA and stressing that the EU would reintroduce sanctions in case of significant non-performance by Iran,” it said.

• 

  E3 says Iran left no choice but to reimpose UN sanctions

E3 says Iran left no choice

On Sunday, the E3 foreign ministers said Tehran’s breaches had left no alternative. “We welcome the re-instatement since 20:00 EDT on 27 September of Resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747, 1803, 1835, and 1929 after completion of the snapback process,” they said. “We urge Iran and all states to abide fully by these resolutions.”

The ministers accused Iran of “exceeding all limits on its nuclear program” since 2019, noting it held enriched uranium “48 times the JCPOA limit” and at least 10 significant quantities of highly enriched uranium outside of monitoring. “Iran has no credible civilian justification whatsoever for its HEU stockpile,” they said.

They insisted diplomacy remained possible. “The reimposition of UN sanctions is not the end of diplomacy. We urge Iran to refrain from any escalatory action and to return to compliance with its legally binding safeguards obligations.”

• 

  Tehran says no obligation to comply with revived UN resolutions

Tehran says no obligation to comply

Iran rejected the move outright. “The Islamic Republic of Iran rejects the claim of the three European countries and the United States regarding the return of previous resolutions that ended under Resolution 2231 in 2015, and emphasizes that no obligation is created for UN member states, including Iran,” the foreign ministry said in a statement on Sunday.

It added: “Any attempt to revive terminated resolutions is legally baseless, morally unacceptable and logically flawed.”

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi separately wrote to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Security Council President Sang Jin Kim, saying the alleged return of sanctions was “null and void.”

He urged them “to prevent any attempt to revive the sanctions mechanisms, including the Sanctions Committee and the Panel of Experts.”

Araghchi accused the Europeans of “defaulting on their commitments, misusing the JCPOA dispute settlement process, and even justifying military attacks against safeguarded nuclear facilities in Iran.”

Tehran said all nuclear-related restrictions under Resolution 2231 must expire on October 18, 2025. “Iran will not recognize any effort to extend, revive or enforce them after that,” the ministry said.

Pezeshkian, who left New York on Saturday empty-handed after failing to secure a deal with European powers, said the United States demanded Iran surrender its stock of highly enriched uranium in exchange for only 90 days of relief from UN sanctions.

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

Kamran Matin, professor of international relations at the University of Sussex, told Iran International that Iran’s leaders knew negotiations would not succeed because halting enrichment and surrendering the highly enriched uranium stockpiles would have meant “total surrender”—something that would have endangered the Islamic Republic’ cohesion.

US-based commentator Ali Afshari argued that the responsibility went beyond Pezeshkian, stressing that presidents do not determine Iran’s strategic policies.

“Those who peddled illusions in the 2024 presidential ‘quasi-election’ cannot hold only Masoud Pezeshkian responsible for the return of UN sanctions and the war,” he wrote on X, adding that reformists had misled voters by urging participation.

Hardliners claim vindication

The snapback of UN sanctions has emboldened Pezeshkian’s conservative rivals who staunchly opposed the 2015 nuclear deal.

After the UN vote, his hardline election rival Saeed Jalili wrote on X: “In 2015 they said JCPOA would completely lift sanctions but almost nothing (happened). Ten years of a nation’s life was wasted because of this political behavior.”

Ultra-hardline lawmaker Amirhossein Sabeti, a close ally of Jalili, echoed his remarks: the JCPOA “was a colonial and one-sided agreement that wasted ten years of the nation’s life, restricted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and ultimately, by proving the wisdom of the revolutionary camp that opposed it from the beginning, exposed the illusions of the pro-West faction.”

On social media, ultra-hardline users demanded prosecutions. One wrote: “The end of the disgraceful JCPOA—the greatest shame in the history of Iran’s politics—congratulations to patriotic compatriots and those who care for Iran, and condolences to reformists, centrists, moderates, and all traitors to the homeland. It is time that those responsible for this disgraceful agreement be put on trial for this unforgivable betrayal.”

Some voices in the reformist camp lamented the collapse. Azar Mansouri, head of the Reform Front, accused conservatives of political score-settling.

“They fought it for years and now celebrate its death. But returning to the pre-JCPOA era means sanctions, isolation, and more pressure on the people. What is there to celebrate?”

Disillusionment with Pezeshkian

Frustration has increasingly turned toward the president. One user recalled his campaign pledge: “Pezeshkian had promised that if he failed to achieve his goals, including lifting sanctions, he would resign. Why didn’t he rely on popular mobilization to achieve his aims? Why doesn’t he resign now?”

Others mocked his unkept promises. “From the beginning, pinning hopes on Pezeshkian to lift sanctions was wishful thinking,” one activist wrote. “Someone who couldn’t deliver on his promise of lifting internet filtering after a year cannot be expected to deliver on lifting sanctions… He had also promised to resign if his pledges were not fulfilled.”

Journalist Mohammad Aghazadeh faulted reformists for urging turnout: “They frightened us by saying if Jalili won, the JCPOA would collapse, and war would break out. Pezeshkian was elected, but sanctions returned, and war came too—and will come again.”

Activist Hossein Razzagh, who boycotted the election, wrote: “The only thing Pezeshkian is not committed to is the votes of those he lured to the ballot box with promises of lifting the shadow of war. The only thing he is committed to is the Leader!”

Journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi urged Pezeshkian to level with voters: “Most of the decisive factors lie beyond his control. But he must frankly explain to the people what his plan is… In fact, he entered the second round of the presidential election with the aim of saving us from Saeed Jalili’s program. Now he is compelled to play Mr. Jalili’s role himself!”

Political activist Motahereh Gounei summed up the wider sense of betrayal: “You celebrated that Jalili didn’t come and Pezeshkian did! The country was ruined, its resources and infrastructure destroyed, we got both war and negotiations!"

"Sanctions returned, the dollar reached 110,000 tomans, and now I, a young Iranian, am awaiting a prison sentence simply for writing about Khamenei’s incompetence in governance and policymaking," the activist said.

The central bank said the intervention is aimed at reducing demand in the open market and providing reassurance to businesses.

Analysts told the semi-official Fars news agency the injection could cut the dollar rate by up to 100,000 rials in the short term if delivered as cash or immediate transfers, though the effect would be limited if allocated through longer-term instruments.

Economists caution that such interventions often provide only temporary relief unless paired with structural reforms to boost exports, manage inflation and ensure transparency in foreign currency allocations.

The Iranian rial weakened on Sunday following the reimposition of snapback sanctions, trading at 111,400 per dollar, 130,370 per euro and 149,620 per pound on the open market.

Sanctions were restored on Saturday under the snapback mechanism after talks between Tehran and European powers collapsed. Iranian officials told Reuters the measures will intensify isolation and fuel public anger, though concessions to the West could fracture the ruling elite.

“The clerical establishment is trapped between a rock and a hard place. The existence of the Islamic Republic is in peril,” one official said.

The revived sanctions -- including limits on oil, banking, finance, uranium enrichment, and a global arms embargo -- come amid fears of renewed Israeli strikes.

“The chances of war breaking out are significant,” former lawmaker Gholamali Jafarzade Imenabadi told Iranian media.

Iranian leaders say the sanctions will push them to harden their nuclear stance, but divisions have emerged inside the establishment. Some urge escalation, while others see “no war, no deal, and continued talks” as the least risky path, Reuters said.

Public frustration is rising under inflation estimated at 40–50%, with food, housing and utilities costs surging. “We already struggle to make ends meet. More sanctions mean more economic pressure. How are we going to survive?” said Shima, a 36-year-old teacher in Tehran.

Iran has relied on oil sales to China to avoid collapse, but officials warn the revived UN measures could threaten even that lifeline.

In a joint statement on Sunday, the so-called E3 foreign ministers said the snapback mechanism under UN Security Council Resolution 2231 had been triggered on August 28 and completed late on September 27, restoring six previous resolutions imposing international sanctions.

“We welcome the re-instatement since 20:00 EDT on 27 September of Resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747, 1803, 1835, and 1929 after completion of the snapback process,” the ministers said. “We urge Iran and all states to abide fully by these resolutions.”

The measures include restrictions on arms transfers, missile development and proliferation-related activities. They had been lifted in 2015 when Iran agreed to curb its nuclear program under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

• 

  Tehran says no obligation to comply with revived UN resolutions

The E3 said Iran had “exceeded all limits on its nuclear program” since 2019 and was now holding enriched uranium “48 times the JCPOA limit.”

According to a September 4 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran possesses 10 “significant quantities” of highly enriched uranium (HEU) outside of monitoring, an amount that “cannot exclude the possibility of manufacturing a nuclear explosive device.”

“Iran has no credible civilian justification whatsoever for its HEU stockpile,” the statement said. “No other country without a nuclear weapons program enriches uranium to such levels and at this scale.”

The ministers said they had made repeated efforts to avoid snapback, including invoking the JCPOA dispute resolution mechanism in 2020 and participating in talks aimed at restoring the deal in 2020 and 2021.

In July 2025, the E3 offered Iran a one-time extension of snapback if Tehran agreed to resume unconditional talks with Washington, return to compliance with its safeguards obligations and address its HEU stockpile. “Iran did not engage seriously with this offer,” they said.

On September 19, the UNSecurity Council rejected a resolution to maintain sanctions relief for Iran. “The outcome of the vote was an unambiguous no,” the ministers said, adding that the decision “sent a clear signal that all states must abide by their international commitments.”

The statement stressed that “the reimposition of UN sanctions is not the end of diplomacy.” It urged Tehran “to refrain from any escalatory action and to return to compliance with its legally binding safeguards obligations.”

France, Germany and the UK said they remained committed to working with all parties “towards a new diplomatic solution to ensure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.”