Snapback Sanctions and the Silent War on Children’s Rights in Iran

(Image: Sayyari/UNICEF)

The recent upheavals in the Middle East once again expose the vulnerability of the international legal order to political pressure and power politics. The Israeli military strike on Iran’s infrastructure -openly endorsed by Germany, France, and the United Kingdom- not only eroded the fundamental principle of the prohibition of the use of force, but also, through the activation of the so-called snapback mechanism, unleashed new layers of legal, political, and humanitarian crisis.

Originally devised within the framework of the JCPOA and Security Council Resolution 2231 as a legal guarantee to ensure compliance, the mechanism has now been weaponized as a tool of political coercion. While formally designed to reimpose sanctions automatically, in substance it has evolved into a vehicle for the systematic reproduction of coercive measures as instruments to compel behavioral change through economic and social pressure. This trajectory does not merely target Iran’s sovereignty; it destabilizes its social and human fabric, with children bearing the heaviest and most disproportionate burden. Devoid of agency in geopolitical contests, Iranian children stand at the frontline of deprivation, stripped of their rights to survival, health, education, and well-being.

Thus, the debate over the snapback mechanism transcends mere legal or political technicalities. It strikes at the heart of a fundamental moral and humanitarian question: how can the international community remain silent in the face of the systematic violation of children’s non-derogable rights?

The Legal Deficit and Questionable Legitimacy of the Snapback

The JCPOA and Resolution 2231 constructed the snapback as a conditional legal safeguard, subject to proof of material breach and to the overarching principles of good faith, proportionality, and non-abuse of rights. The resort by the European trio to this mechanism is highly problematic. These states themselves failed to honor their JCPOA commitments -most notably the establishment of the INSTEX financial channel- largely due to U.S. secondary sanctions. Such conduct amounts to a violation of pacta sunt servanda (Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) and epitomizes the instrumentalization of international law.

Their simultaneous endorsement of Israel’s armed attack on Iran further undermines their credibility, breaching the cornerstone principle of the Charter of the United Nations. To claim to enforce the JCPOA while being complicit in the violation of the prohibition of the use of force is an untenable contradiction that corrodes the legitimacy of their invocation of the snapback mechanism.

Law as a Tool of Power: Political and Security Dimensions

The activation of the mechanism must be situated within the broader strategy of “maximum pressure.” Its consequences are manifold:

1. Erosion of diplomacy: the snapback forecloses meaningful prospects for dialogue and negotiation.
2. Entrenchment of distrust: it deepens the rift between Iran and Europe, rendering the revival of the JCPOA virtually impossible.
3. A perilous precedent for international law: the transformation of comprehensive sanctions into an instrument of political domination reduces international law to a tool of coercion and displaces the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes.

In this sense, the snapback demonstrates how international law, in the absence of impartial collective will, can be re-engineered into a weapon of power politics -one that jeopardizes not only regional security but also the human dignity of entire populations.

Children on the Frontline of Sanctions

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Iran is a party, enshrines the principle of the best interests of the child as paramount in all binding decisions. Comprehensive sanctions flagrantly disregard this principle. Their tangible consequences include:

1. Restricted access to essential medicines and medical equipment;
2. Shortages of adequate nutrition and vital supplements;
3. Severe strain on the educational system due to scarcity of resources and technology;
4. Deterioration of children’s mental health as families buckle under economic and social stress.

Empirical evidence from the 2012–2015 sanctions period attests to these harms: children with chronic illnesses became the principal victims; mortality rates rose; and educational and nutritional poverty widened. Such outcomes constitute direct violations of the rights to health, education, and even life -rights that are non-derogable under customary international law and binding human rights treaties.

Legal and Diplomatic Avenues for Iran

Iran retains recourse to legal and diplomatic instruments, including:

1. Initiating proceedings before the International Court of Justice against the European states for breach of international obligations;
2. Documenting and submitting evidence of the humanitarian impact of sanctions to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Human Rights Council, and the World Health Organization;
3. Building coalitions with other sanctioned states to contest the legitimacy of coercive measures;
4. Engaging in public and media diplomacy to highlight the silent violations of children’s rights before global opinion.

Conclusion

The activation of the snapback mechanism epitomizes the degeneration of international law into a tool of raw political power. Devoid of good faith or fairness, it represents a legal façade for geopolitical coercion. Legally untenable, politically misguided, and humanly devastating, it amounts to what can only be described as a “silent atrocity” against children. Iranian children -innocent of geopolitical rivalries- are deprived of medicine, nutrition, education, and psychological security; their futures are mortgaged to the calculus of power politics.

This reality does not merely breach the Convention on the Rights of the Child; it affronts the collective conscience of humanity. The international community -academia, civil society, and human rights advocates- bears a heightened responsibility to defend children’s rights, which by their very nature are universal, indivisible, and non-negotiable. Should the global order remain silent in the face of such violations, it will not only erode its legitimacy but also forfeit the trust of future generations in the promise of justice and peace. Only by re-anchoring international relations in the foundational principles of international law, reviving dialogue, and renouncing coercive sanctions can we break this destructive cycle and secure a future of peace, security, and sustainable development-for the children of Iran, and for children everywhere.

* MohammadMehdi Seyed Nasseri is university lecturer and researcher on international children's rights.