Recent meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Resolution 2231, rather than serving as a platform for consensus-building, became a clear manifestation of the deepening rift among major powers and Europe’s political isolation with regard to Iran’s nuclear file. The forthright positions taken by Russia, China and the Islamic Republic of Iran demonstrated that efforts by the three European countries to revive the so-called snapback mechanism enjoy neither a legal basis nor international consensus.
Vasily Nebenzya, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, described the claims by France, the United Kingdom and Germany to activate the snapback mechanism as “unacceptable,” stressing that Resolution 2231 has, in practice, ceased to exist. Criticizing the conduct of the President of the Security Council, he warned that the body must not be turned into a tool for advancing the political objectives of certain Western governments. Recalling six rounds of negotiations between Iran and the United States and the attack on Iran just two days before a new round of talks, Nebenzya characterized this behavior as a clear sign of Western duplicity.
China’s representative then voiced strong support for Russia’s position, stating that Resolution 2231 has come to an end and that the Security Council cannot take action on the basis of the claims made by the three European states. Beijing warned that such moves would only undermine the credibility of the Security Council. Referring to attacks by the United States and the Israeli regime on Iran, the Chinese representative emphasized that the use of force not only fails to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue but also makes the path of diplomacy more difficult. He called for an end to tensions, the lifting of illegal sanctions, and negotiations based on mutual respect and equal rights.
By contrast, the representatives of the United Kingdom and France sought to continue portraying the Security Council as competent to intervene in Iran’s nuclear file. The UK representative called for inspections of damaged facilities and for Iran’s return to direct negotiations with the United States, claiming Europe’s continued commitment to its JCPOA obligations—an assertion that drew negative reactions from Russia and China. A verbal exchange between the Russian and French representatives further highlighted the serious gap between the European narrative on the JCPOA and the legal and political realities.
Meanwhile, the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran was marked by notable coherence and clarity. Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, stated on legal grounds that Resolution 2231 expired on 18 October 2025 and, from that date, lost all legal effect and executive mandate. He stressed that Iran has been a committed party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty since 1970 and has consistently rejected weapons of mass destruction on legal, ethical and doctrinal grounds. Iravani made clear that the Islamic Republic of Iran neither submits to pressure and intimidation nor pays tribute, yet remains committed to principled diplomacy and genuine negotiations.
Alongside these positions, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in his report to the Security Council, recalled that following the United States’ withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 and Iran’s subsequent reduction of its commitments, the status of the agreement’s implementation has become highly complex. He urged all parties to focus on diplomatic solutions, avoid further escalation of the crisis, and keep the path of dialogue alive.
The meeting ultimately concluded without the issuance of a joint statement or a new resolution—an outcome that clearly reflects the deep divisions among the permanent members of the Security Council over Iran’s nuclear file. This time, however, the rift worked not to Iran’s detriment but to the disadvantage of Europe and the Western narrative on the JCPOA, underscoring a shift in the political balance surrounding this sensitive issue.