UN Security Council rejected recently a Russia-China proposal to extend Resolution 2231 and preserve diplomacy on Iran’s nuclear program. The resolution, which aimed to keep diplomatic channels open and avoid confrontation, was supported by Russia, China, Pakistan, and Algeria, while Europe and the United States blocked it, exposing the limits of a pressure-based strategy.
Iran has consistently pursued all rational and constructive diplomatic paths, including the Cairo Agreement and direct negotiations with Europe, even amid regional tensions. Yet, European countries, aligned with Washington, continued to demand actions beyond Iran’s obligations. One of the most controversial measures at play is the so-called “snapback” mechanism, which reimposes terminated UN sanctions on Iran. Tehran has repeatedly emphasized that the ctivation of the snapback is illegal and lacks legitimacy, as it attempts to revive restrictions after they were previously terminated under Resolution 2231.
Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, rejected Western demands to halt uranium enrichment, emphasizing that Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful. By recalling its ambassadors from Germany, France, and the United Kingdom for consultations, Tehran signaled the beginning of a new phase in its diplomacy—one that preserves diplomatic principles while asserting its right to respond to illegitimate pressures.
This episode highlights the complex nature of international diplomacy, where irrational demands and unilateral actions create new challenges, yet Tehran maintains the capacity to navigate these pressures prudently and keep the door open for negotiation.
To provide further insight, Mehr News Agency interviewed Marc Finaud, senior advisor and associate fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) and former French foreign ministry spokesman.
Finaud underlined the legal and political complexities surrounding the snapback. He noted that the mechanism, initially proposed during JCPOA negotiations, was intended to provide all Participants with a credible means of ensuring compliance, bypassing any veto by a Permanent Member of the Security Council. "This mechanism, proposed by Russia during the JCPOA negotiations, was intended to reassure the skeptiks, especially in the US Congress, that Participants to the agreement had a strong means of pressure to secure Iran's compliance. The process could be initiated by any Participant and avoided any veto by a Permanent Member of the Security Council. So legally speaking, this is what happened at the initiative of the E3 that had launched in 2003 the whole negotiation leading to the JCPOA."
Speaking about the clear contradiction between the US withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 and its current role in promoting the snapback process, he said that the ongoing crisis originated from the Trump administration’s decision to leave the agreement, and when the U.S. attempted to trigger the snapback in 2020, other Security Council members opposed it since the U.S. was no longer a participant. "There is no doubt that the current crisis was started by the withdrawal of the US in 2018 under the first Trump administration. This is why, when the US tried to trigger the snapback mechanism in 2020, the other members of the Security Council opposed it since the US was no longer a Participant to the JCPOA. Now the Trump administration has supported the E3 initiative and has voted with them in the Security Council against an extension of the sanctions waiver."
Asked about the negative signal that this situation sends to the international community regarding the credibility of multilateral agreements, he said, "Indeed, the US withdrawal sent a very negative signal and illustrated once again the tension between great-power politics and multilateralism as a solution to global challenges. The problem is that Iran also disregarded some of its commitments (the IAEA Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and the JCPOA) as a retaliation against the US withdrawal from the agreement and its reimposition of sanctions, raising suspicions that its nuclear program was not only peaceful." He was referring to the announced steps Tehran took in gradually reducing its commitments after Washington withdraw from the JCPOA and the European parties to the deal also failed to compensate for Iran’s losses.
Voting behavior among smaller states during the Security Council session also reflects both political alignment and independent judgment. Speaking of this, he stressed, "There seems to be some natural alignment with the Western powers on the part of European countries (Denmark, Greece, Slovenia) but on the part of countries from the Global South (Panama, Sierra Leone, Somalia), it looks unlikely that their decision resulted from any pressure."
Regarding the balance of power within the Security Council, Finaud emphasized that longstanding divisions between Western permanent members and Russia and China have paralyzed the Council for years, preventing it from fulfilling its mandate and addressing conflicts. "Unless all Permanent Members give priority to the interests of global peace and security over their national interests, the Council will continue to be dysfunctional."
Finally, the former French diplomat spoke about the alternatives beyond sanctions and pressure in resolving the deadlock over Iran’s nuclear issue. He argued that reliance on military options or maximum-pressure sanctions, as favored by countries like the US or the Israelo regime, undermines peaceful solutions. He noted that history has shown that sanctions rarely achieve political objectives and often harm ordinary citizens. Conversely, the JCPOA demonstrated that the prospect of sanctions relief serves as a stronger incentive for negotiation. Following this model could help address the current crisis without further undermining the global non-proliferation regime. "On the contrary, the JCPOA had demonstrated that the prospect of sanctions waiver was a more powerful incentive towards a negotiated agreement. This is the model that should be followed to resolve the current crisis," he concluded.
MNA