On September 26, the UN Security Council held a vote on technically extending, in their entirety and for another six months, the mandate concerning the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme and Resolution 2231 which endorsed it.

The resolution stressed the importance of finding a negotiated diplomatic solution to the issues addressed by Resolution 2231, noting the need for more time for substantive dialogue. It also welcomed the agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) signed in Cairo on September 9, and provided a clear directive for continued engagement between the two parties.

A key element of the operative part of the Russian-Chinese draft was an urgent call on all initial JCPOA participants to resume negotiations on issues related to Resolution 2231 and the comprehensive agreements enshrined within it immediately.

We are grateful to Algeria and Pakistan for their resolute and energetic support of our efforts. We also note the stance of the Republic of Korea and Guyana, which, despite external pressure, did not vote against the draft.

The relevance of the resolution proposed by Russia and China was beyond doubt, given the rapid escalation of tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme. The United Kingdom, Germany and France are stubbornly pursuing a path of escalation, intent on using illegitimate methods to achieve the reimposition of UN sanctions against Iran, which were lifted a decade ago. In line with their openly confrontational course, these three countries – together with the United States, which long ago announced its withdrawal from the JCPOA and embarked on a path of violating Resolution 2231 – opposed the initiative from Moscow and Beijing.

In doing so, this group has effectively rejected the path of diplomacy, making a definitive choice in favour of provocation, pressure, and threats. These Western actors cynically pressured the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council in a bid to co-opt them into a predatory, opportunistic, and fundamentally flawed policy. This approach leads to the destabilisation of international affairs and undermines the foundations of the international security system.

We are firmly convinced that the use of force to resolve issues in the field of nuclear non-proliferation must be excluded. Such methods are not only counterproductive and harmful but also dangerous as they lead to the exacerbation of disputes and their escalation into an uncontrollable conflict with tragic and irreversible consequences. A clear example in this regard is the unscrupulous and irresponsible action by the European member states in June of this year, which triggered aggression against Iran under the pretext of imaginary threats allegedly posed by its nuclear programme.

Those who voted against the extension of Resolution 2231 on September 26 demonstrated a lack of genuine interest in finding negotiated solutions to remove suspicions and bias regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy programme. They are averse to the very idea of reaching agreements built on an equal footing and a carefully calibrated balance of interests, as was the case with the JCPOA – an agreement which they have since discredited and trampled underfoot.

Supporters of “maximum pressure” on Iran appear to be attempting to assuage their guilt over the June attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, and to impose on the international community the notion of a serious threat emanating from Tehran. For them, any progress or improvement in cooperation between Iran and the IAEA is an obstacle to promoting their aggressive anti-Iran agenda. This is not the first time that European states have acted to undermine Iran’s agreements with the IAEA. All of this is a matter of serious concern.

The outcome of the vote on the Russian-Chinese draft resolution, which offered hope for stabilisation and productive dialogue, cannot obscure or cancel the fact that the European attempts to reimpose the UN restrictions on Iran lifted under the JCPOA have foundered due to their legal and procedural inconsistency. The United Kingdom and the European two have harmed not only the nuclear deal but also themselves by demonstratively violating Resolution 2231 and bypassing the agreed procedure, which was sealed by a consensus decision of the UN Security Council. Consequently, neither their August 28 appeal in New York requesting snapback, nor the version of the resolution submitted by the presiding nation at their request, which was considered by the Security Council on September 19, could meet the stringent requirements of Resolution 2231. This means they are null and void from the point of view of international law and do not entail any obligations for other UN member states.

Therefore, the so-called ‘snapback’ mechanism cannot be considered triggered. Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA remain in force and have not been cancelled. They retain their validity until October 18, 2025. The UN Secretariat has neither the reason nor the mandate to revise or deviate from the provisions of this resolution.

Our further practical steps and policies will be guided by this position.