In a questionable and politically motivated move lacking any legal or juridical foundation, the Security Council convened a meeting focused on efforts to revive the sanctions committee against Iran. Through a procedural vote under the agenda item known as “non-proliferation,” Colombia secured approval for the Security Council agenda item entitled Committee 1737 (2006) on sanctions against Iran, thereby paving the way for the session.

This move, rooted in what Iran views as the unlawful conduct of Britain, France, and Germany in activating the snapback mechanism, has once again exposed new dimensions of political manipulation and the erosion of international institutions. At the same time, it has revealed a new phase of what Tehran sees as the West’s illusory attempts at coercion against Iran. These efforts now extend from the Security Council to the Board of Governors, with their latest component being the recent US military aggression against Iranian territory under the allegedly false claim of downing an Apache helicopter.

This comes as Iran’s steadfast commitment to its principles and legitimate rights, along with opposition from numerous countries, including China and Russia, to these initiatives, is paving the way for yet another setback in the record of Western unilateralism.

Reopening Closed Files: A Symbol of the Security Council’s Declining Legitimacy

Although Western countries, leveraging their media dominance, have sought to legitimize their anti-Iran initiatives at the Security Council, from the snapback mechanism to claims of reactivating previous sanctions resolutions, the reality is that reopening these files runs contrary to Security Council decisions and lacks any legal basis. Such actions serve only to further expose the Council’s decline, loss of credibility, and increasing politicization.

UN Security Council Resolution 2231 expired on October 18, 2025, and all provisions and obligations associated with it came to an end. Consequently, there is no legal foundation for the so-called 1737 Committee, no Security Council sanctions resolutions against Iran remain in force, and there is no legal justification for holding meetings under the banner of “non-proliferation.”

In this regard, Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s representative to the UN Security Council, stated during the meeting: “The actions of certain UN officials in the process of restoring Resolution 1737 lack any legal legitimacy and have no basis within the Security Council. The sanctions committee established at the end of 2006 under Resolution 1737 ceased to exist after the adoption of the 2015 document that repealed previous decisions concerning Iran.”

China’s representative, supporting Russia’s position, likewise emphasized: “Efforts to restore sanctions against Iran have no basis within the Security Council.”

Given these legal realities, the Security Council’s conduct amounts to nothing more than an unlawful action—one rooted in the excesses of the dominant powers. Coupled with the Council’s indifference toward what Iran describes as US-Israeli crimes, including the killing of schoolchildren in Minab and the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon, such behavior has accelerated the institution’s decline and loss of credibility.

From the Security Council to the : A Coordinated Project of Pressure and Concessions

The conduct of certain European countries, including Germany, France, and Britain, alongside the United States, from the Security Council to the Board of Governors, reflects efforts to extract concessions that they have failed to obtain through war, diplomacy, or sanctions.

On one side of this equation stands the United States, whose military actions against Iran, despite extensive publicity, have failed to achieve their objectives. According to this view, the Islamic Republic of Iran, through the unity of the battlefield, the public sphere, and diplomacy, has imposed a major setback on Washington and challenged its global standing.

In the diplomatic arena as well, the United States was unable to impose its demands on Tehran. Negotiations in Islamabad, according to this narrative, proceeded on Iran’s terms. Tehran even carried out missile operations in support of Lebanon against the Israeli regime while pursuing its diplomatic conditions—an action it views as stemming from Iran’s strength and responsibility for safeguarding regional security.

On the other side stands Europe. Although it did not directly participate in US military aggression against Iran, some European countries provided facilities to the aggressors while simultaneously imposing sanctions on Tehran. In the latest example, under the pretext of protecting freedom of navigation, sanctions were imposed on certain individuals and entities, while no mention was made of what Iran describes as the unlawful and criminal maritime blockade imposed against it.

Despite all these measures, Iran has refused to yield to threats or inducements. As a result, a new phase of provocative Western actions at both the Board of Governors and the Security Council has been set in motion.

The United States and three European countries at the Security Council, while making what Iran considers baseless allegations and ignoring the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities and centers, are seeking a resolution that would whitewash aggression and crimes while increasing pressure on Iran. At the same time, they continue to raise the issue of restoring sanctions

Such behavior, in Iran’s view, once again demonstrates that the West is not a guarantor of peace and security but rather one of the principal sources of global crises, a course of action that has produced nothing but the weakening and destruction of international institutions.

Failure of Western Consensus-Building and Erosion of Pressure Tools

Although Europe and the United States have turned the capture of international institutions into part of their power projection strategy, recent developments suggest that these instruments are gradually losing their effectiveness.

Previously, a Security Council resolution reportedly introduced by Bahrain at the urging of the United States was vetoed by Russia and China. Now, too, the consensus sought by the West has failed to materialize. In the procedural vote, Security Council members approved only the holding of the meeting itself, with 11 votes in favor, 2 votes against from China and Russia, and 2 abstentions from Pakistan and Somalia—an outcome that itself reflects the West’s inability to achieve full consensus.

At the Board of Governors, the US-sponsored draft resolution has also faced serious opposition, including from Russia, China, and several other members, forcing its authors to revise the text. Even so, no consensus has emerged around it.

Accordingly, the West’s unlawful conduct in the Security Council and the Board of Governors is unlikely to produce results beyond propaganda and psychological pressure. The international community’s response to such politicization, according to this view, will be growing distrust and resentment toward these institutions.

Meanwhile, Iran has demonstrated that it will respond decisively to any threat while refusing to surrender or abandon its rights and principles. As a result, Western policies not only fail to provide solutions to existing challenges but merely complicate matters further and increase global costs.

If Europe believes that sanctions and alignment with the United States at the Security Council and the Board of Governors can create the conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, it is making a strategic miscalculation. Such irrational behavior, in Iran’s view, will achieve nothing except raising the walls of mistrust and further limiting Europe’s ability to benefit from the transit routes passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Europe should by now understand that relying on American promises no longer yields tangible benefits. The fate of the Arab countries on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf, which tied their security to the United States, may serve as a lasting lesson for Europe.