EU revives bans on Iran’s oil, banking and transport sectors after UN snapback

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) said the move was "a precautionary measure to protect Canadians from the risk of Salmonella infection.”

Importers must now prove shipments do not originate from Iran, or they will be blocked or sent for testing.

“An outbreak investigation is ongoing, led by the Public Health Agency of Canada, with more than 100 laboratory-confirmed Salmonella infections in Canada and numerous food recall notifications linked to pistachio kernels and products originating from Iran,” read a statement by CFIA.

At least 16 people have been hospitalized, though no deaths have been reported. The Public Health Agency of Canada said 75% of cases were among women, warning that children, the elderly and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable.

The CFIA said the restrictions will remain in place until food safety reviews are complete, with penalties ranging from fines to license suspensions or legal action for violations.

Iranian pistachios have faced bans in the past.

Last year, the European Union temporarily halted imports after detecting high levels of aflatoxin, a toxic mold byproduct.

Other Iranian produce, including peppers, kiwis and potatoes, has also been rejected by Russia, India and Pakistan in recent years over contamination concerns.

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.

“My Swedish colleague sent me the video on Friday. My first reaction was that it was amusing. But I immediately added, 'sad too’,” Valtonen told Helsingin Sanomat, Finland’s largest daily newspaper.

She added that she does not change her clothing based on who she is meeting and avoids events that require covering the face or hair.

Valtonen said she raises women’s rights in every meeting with Iranian officials, including this week’s talks.

Iranian state television blurred Valtonen’s legs in a news broadcast of her meeting with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Tuesday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

Sweden’s Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard’s legs were also blurred in the same broadcast. The footage was widely shared on social media, including by Iranian women's rights activist and journalist Masih Alinejad.

Finland’s National Coalition Party, which Valtonen represents, also reacted on Instagram, calling the incident “a sad example of the trampling of women’s rights.”

"This is a reminder of how women around the world are still controlled and erased from visibility. Every woman has the absolute right to be seen, heard, and live freely," the party wrote on a post on Instagram.

"The National Coalition Party stands firmly for women’s rights — both in Finland and globally," it added.

Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi told state television on Saturday night that the agreement between Riyadh and Islamabad was positive and proposed Iran, Iraq and others also take part.

“Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iraq can reach a collective defense pact,” he said, while acknowledging that US influence over Riyadh and Islamabad may limit such moves.

Earlier in September, Saudi Arabia and nuclear-armed Pakistan signed a mutual defense pact in Riyadh, bolstering their decades-old security partnership a week after Israel’s strikes on Qatar. Riyadh insisted the deal was not a response to specific events but the culmination of years of talks.

The agreement, described by a senior Saudi official as a “comprehensive defensive agreement that encompasses all military means,” says that aggression against either country will be considered an attack on both.

Pakistan, the only Muslim-majority nuclear power, has long stationed troops in the kingdom and provides technical and operational support to its military.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman signed the pact alongside Pakistan’s powerful army chief Asim Munir.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Safavi said Iran launched more than 500 long-range missiles during the June conflict but admitted weaknesses in air defense and intelligence.

“Foreign assessments show 60% believe Iran won, because Israel did not achieve its objectives,” he said, without mentioning any source.

He added Iran was rebuilding damaged radar and missile systems and would “certainly increase” its offensive capabilities.

“The enemy could not tolerate us striking Haifa’s refinery and power plants,” Safavi said, adding that Iranian missiles destroyed advanced Israeli sites and pilots.

Safavi warned the conflict was “not fully over” and called for strengthening diplomacy, media, and military readiness. “We must continue the path of power-building. Offensive power is not only in air and space but in all domains,” he 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.