Iran considers response to reimposed UN sanctions

Iran is considering how to respond to reimposed United Nations sanctions over its atomic programme, with one politician suggesting parliament will weigh up potentially withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The sanctions again freeze Iranian assets abroad, halt arms deals with Tehran, and penalise any development of Iran’s ballistic missile programme, among other measures. It came through a mechanism known as “snapback”, included in Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, and comes as Iran’s economy already is reeling.

Iran’s rial currency sits at a record low, increasing pressure on food prices and making daily life that much more challenging. That includes meat, rice and other staples of the Iranian dinner table.

Meanwhile, people worry about a new round of fighting between Iran and Israel, as well as potentially the United States, as missile sites struck during the 12-day war in June now appear to be being rebuilt.

Speaking to the Young Journalists Club, which is affiliated with Iranian state television, Ismail Kowsari said parliament will discuss withdrawing from the nuclear treaty.

“Parliament will discuss this issue… and decide on it,” he said.

Parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf issued his own warning to those who would honour the UN sanctions as parliament began meeting on Sunday.

“We announce that if any country wants to take action against Iran based on these illegal resolutions, it will face serious reciprocal action from Iran, and the three European countries that are the initiators of this illegal action will also face our reaction,” he said, according to a report by the state-run IRNA news agency.

France, Germany and the United Kingdom triggered snapback over Iran 30 days ago for further restricting monitoring of its nuclear programme and the deadlock over its negotiations with the US.

Iran further withdrew from the International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring after Israel’s war with the country in June, which also saw the US strike nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic.

Meanwhile, the country still maintains a stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% purity – a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90% – that is largely enough to make several atomic bombs.

Iran has long insisted its nuclear programme is peaceful, though the West and IAEA say Tehran had an organised weapons programme up until 2003.

The three European nations on Sunday said they “continuously made every effort to avoid triggering snapback”, but Iran “has not authorised IAEA inspectors to regain access to Iran’s nuclear sites, nor has it produced and transmitted to the IAEA a report accounting for its stockpile of high-enriched uranium”.

The nations also noted Iran enriches uranium at a level that no other peaceful programme does.

Asked by the Young Journalists Club if Iran’s withdrawal from the treaty means moving towards building the bomb, Mr Kowsari said: “No, it does not mean that. This issue will be reviewed separately later, and we can have it on the agenda if necessary.”

Tehran has argued the three European nations should not be allowed to implement snapback, pointing in part to America’s unilateral withdrawal from the accord in 2018 during the first term of President Donald Trump’s administration.

Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, speaking to Iranian state TV before the sanctions were imposed, sought to downplay the effect UN sanctions would have on the country.

“It will have some damages, some losses for us,” he said Saturday night. “However, they have presented it in their own media as something far greater and much bigger than it actually is, and they have tried to create a monster to frighten the Iranian people and then force our government and our foreign policy to give concessions and pay tribute in this regard.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio praised the three European nations for “an act of decisive global leadership” for imposing the sanctions on Iran and said “diplomacy is still an option”.

However, it remains unclear how Tehran will respond.

Kelsey Davenport, a nuclear expert at the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said: “The Trump administration appears to think it has a stronger hand post-strikes, and it can wait for Iran to come back to the table.

“Given the knowledge Iran has, given the materials that remain in Iran, that’s a very dangerous assumption.”

Risks also remain for Iran as well, she added.

“In the short term, kicking out the IAEA increases the risk of miscalculation. The US or Israel could use the lack of inspections as a pretext for further strikes.”