S/PV.10006 Security Council

In accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to participate in this meeting. On behalf of the Council, I welcome His Excellency Mr. Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. Members of the Council have before them document S/2025/539, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by China and the Russian Federation. The Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements before the voting.

First of all, I would like to welcome Mr. Seyed Abbas Araghchi, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran, who is present in this Chamber today. Today, the Security Council is set to consider a draft resolution (S/2025/539), submitted by Russia and China, on the technical extension, for another six months, of resolution 2231 (2015) on Iran’s nuclear programme. As is well known, we submitted the draft resolution on 28 August, immediately after the United Kingdom, France and Germany (E3) submitted their notification in an attempt to launch the so-called snapback mechanism, in a breach of all legal and political frameworks. Nevertheless, we did not immediately put our document to a vote, as we hoped that common sense would prevail among our Western colleagues and that they would withdraw their unfounded complaint and show willingness to engage in constructive negotiations in the format involving the initial parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). We had hoped that both our European colleagues and the United States would come to their senses and choose the path of diplomacy and dialogue rather than clumsy blackmail, which can only stir up escalation in the region. What have we seen, instead, over the past 29 days? We have seen the same scenario, quite typical of Europeans, of pressure, raising the stakes and, ultimately, lies. When submitting the aforementioned notification, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assured everyone that they were prepared to abandon their escalatory policy if Iran complied with the conditions they had set. I would like to remind Council members that they set out three conditions: resuming cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), providing information on the stockpile of enriched uranium and returning to negotiations with the United States. Against this backdrop, Iran acted responsibly, focused on constructively resolving the situation, despite the fact that it was entirely provoked by the hypocritical policies of Western countries. They are now very reluctant to recall that the current crisis around the JCPOA was initially triggered by the United States’ withdrawal, followed by the European participants consistently refusing to comply with their obligations. First, it was Russia that offered such an opportunity, proposing a meeting of the initial parties to the JCPOA in Vienna, on the sidelines of this month’s session of the IAEA Board of Governors. The United States and the E3 publicly rebuffed this proposal. Then, it was Iran that expressed its willingness to engage with the United States, here in New York, precisely during this high-level week, but yet again Washington gave a negative response. Therefore, Iran has taken all possible steps to accommodate the E3 and the United States. What compromises have Washington, London, Paris and Berlin made during these 28 days? They have made none whatsoever. No matter what Tehran does, Western countries keep issuing new ultimatums. This is not diplomacy, this is deception and theatre of the absurd. If the United Kingdom and France are truly prepared to deliver on their promises to revoke the snapback clause, given Iran’s constructive approach, the vote on the Russian-Chinese draft resolution affords them one last chance to demonstrate that they honour their commitments. This is especially true given that the adjustments and amendments to the document now encompass all — I stress this, all — of their concerns that were set out as conditions in late August. It now contains a call for continuation of cooperation between Iran and the IAEA, as well as for the resumption of negotiations within the format of the initial parties to the JCPOA that presupposes the presence of Iran and the United States at the negotiating table alongside the Russian Federation, China and the E3. This is an opportunity for the United States also to demonstrate its willingness to negotiate and its respect for diplomatic means of crisis resolution instead of attempting to definitively destroy the nuclear deal from the outside. Despite the fact that Western claims relating to the snapback mechanism are null and void, it is clear that the absence of consensus at the Security Council on this matter is leading us all towards legal nihilism and deepening division at the Security Council. The situation is liable to have very adverse consequences in terms of the Council’s main responsibility, namely, the maintenance of international peace and security. It is difficult to even imagine the wave of escalation in the Middle East that could result from attempts by certain countries to use the Security Council for the advancement of their narrow interests. The Security Council has an opportunity to avoid this dangerous scenario. We literally have it on the table in front of us. The proposal of the Russian Federation and China for the technical extension of resolution 2231 (2015) for six months, until April 2026, allows time to seek an acceptable solution for all. The way this should proceed is set out in the operative part of our draft resolution. It should be achieved through negotiations with all initial parties to the JCPOA, as was the case 10 years ago when the nuclear deal was agreed upon. We trust that all colleagues on the Council will vote in favour of the adoption of this draft resolution, thereby demonstrating a responsible de-politicized approach, not only in word but also in deed, to show their commitment to diplomacy. This is a moment of truth for each member of the Security Council, and we hope that Council members will make the right choice. Over the past decade, the Iranian nuclear issue has been going through ups and downs and recurring crises. The United States unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, its reimposition of unilateral sanctions on Iran and its maximum pressure policy are the primary causes of the many difficulties and challenges today. A few months ago, the United States and Israel brazenly launched military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, further worsening the Iranian nuclear issue. Today, 10 years later, the Iranian nuclear issue once again stands at a critical juncture. The E3 — France, Germany and the United Kingdom — insist on activating the snapback mechanism, while Iran has made clear that it will take countermeasures if the sanctions are restored. The current situation is precarious, teetering on the brink of collapse. At the same time, Iran recently reached an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on resuming cooperation. It has also fully demonstrated the sincerity of its engagement with the E3 and has repeatedly sent positive signals of its readiness to resume talks with the United States. It is fair to say that diplomatic means have not yet been exhausted, and there are still hopes for a peaceful settlement. Under these circumstances, China and Russia have submitted this draft resolution on a six-month technical extension to resolution 2231 (2015) (S/2025/539), encouraging Iran to further its engagement with the IAEA and urging the original signatories of the JCPOA to immediately restart negotiations. The draft resolution is not about picking sides between Iran and the E3. It aims to allow more time for diplomatic efforts and create conditions for a political solution. China calls on all Council members to vote in favor of the draft resolution. Let us opt for a technical extension rather than reimposing sanctions, for dialogue and negotiation rather than division and confrontation, and for easing the situation rather than aggravating tensions. Let us work together to put the Iranian nuclear issue back on track towards a political and diplomatic settlement.

First of all, I want to recognize the presence of the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran here. I wanted to take the floor before the voting to put things in perspective and describe the extensive efforts that we have made over these past eight days — right up to the very last moment — to find a diplomatic solution that avoids the reimposition of sanctions against Iran. That was our pledge during last week’s vote on the draft resolution relating to resolution 2231 (2015) (S/2025/561). Throughout the entire high-level week, the attempt to reach an agreement with Iran on an extension proposal has been a priority for France and the E3 — France, Germany and the United Kingdom. The President of France has made this a major goal. He mentioned it explicitly in his statement at the General Assembly, urging Iran to grasp the outstretched hand. He discussed it with the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and then with his counterpart, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He also had several contacts with other partners. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has pursued the same goal throughout this week. The Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the E3 and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy met the Foreign To our great regret, Iran has persisted in its stance of refusal. We expected concrete and specific gestures; Iran did not make any genuinely concrete and specific gestures. We sought an immediate agreement; Iran preferred to postpone everything until subsequent negotiations. Allow me to describe some specific technically feasible and politically acceptable gestures that that we explicitly requested. First of all, we asked for effective cooperation with the IAEA. That means access for inspectors to the most sensitive Iranian nuclear installations, including Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. While Iran claimed to have signed an agreement to resume cooperation with the Agency in Cairo, these highly sensitive sites have not undergone inspections, in violation of Iran’s international obligations. We also requested gestures of transparency to allow light to be shed on the condition and location of the stock of enriched material, in particular the 450 kg of highly enriched uranium enriched to 60 per cent. Our demand was minimal: for Iran to produce its special report, which is an essential stage in the verification by the Agency of the condition and location of the stocks. To date, this report has not been produced, which is a violation of Iran’s obligations. Lastly, we demanded a resumption of direct and unconditional negotiations with the United States. This demand is essential so that the extension can open the way to substantive negotiation. Iran proposed the resumption of negotiations only through an intermediary. That is where we are: direct negotiations were not resumed. We are forced to conclude that the conditional extension that we proposed to Iran on 17 July was not accepted. The Security Council would be shirking its responsibilities were it to approve an extension of resolution 2231 (2015) when Iran continues to violate its international obligations and shows no genuine willingness to engage in substantive negotiations. It is our responsibility to enforce the resolutions and reimpose the sanctions of the Security Council. Under these conditions France will oppose the Russian-Chinese proposal to vote in favour of an unconditional extension, and we call on the other Council members to not support this draft resolution (S/2025/539). Once again, we call on Iran to act responsibly towards the international community and to respect its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Any other reaction would be likely to lead to an escalation with serious consequences and take us further away from a negotiated solution. The reintroduction of sanctions in no way signals the end of the negotiation. France remains resolutely faithful to the commitment that it made in 2003 to a diplomatic settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue. Sanctions will never be an end in themselves, but a lever to achieve this common objective: a negotiated framework for Iran’s nuclear programme in the form of a robust, lasting and verifiable agreement. My country will continue to work relentlessly towards this goal, confident in the knowledge that there is no alternative.

I shall put the draft resolution to the vote now.

The draft resolution received 4 votes in favour, 9 against and 2 abstentions. The draft resolution has not been adopted, having failed to obtain the required number of votes. I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements after the voting.

China deeply regrets that the draft resolution just put to a vote (S/2025/539) was not adopted. China has consistently maintained that dialogue, negotiation and diplomacy are the only viable options for resolving the Iranian nuclear issue and that a political solution is the only correct path to maintaining peace and stability in the Middle East. The current situation has reached a critical juncture. We call on all parties to exercise calm and restraint, continue dialogue and engagement, prudently address the current difficulties and avoid escalating tensions. I would like to emphasize the following points in this regard. First, we must uphold regional peace and stability. History has shown that resorting to force or applying maximum pressure are not the right approach to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue. Against the backdrop of the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the overall instability in the Middle East, a breakdown in the Iranian nuclear issue could trigger a new regional security crisis, which is not in the common interests of the international community. We urge the United States to demonstrate political will by responding positively to Iran’s proposal for the resumption of talks and unequivocally committing to refrain from launching further military strikes against Iran. We urge the European Union to engage in good-faith diplomatic efforts and abandon its practice of pushing for sanctions and coercive pressure against Iran. Secondly, we must remain committed to resolving disputes through dialogue and negotiation. The Iranian nuclear issue is ultimately a political and security issue, rooted in a lack of mutual trust among the relevant parties. The unconditional return of the original signatories to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to the negotiating table would facilitate a political solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. All parties should engage in dialogue on an equal footing, on the basis of mutual respect, while striving to find common ground that addresses the legitimate concerns of all sides. The Security Council should play a constructive role in assisting the relevant parties to rebuild trust and bridge differences. Thirdly, we must uphold the spirit and principles of the JCPOA. Regardless of the future trajectory of the political settlement process, the core goals and objectives established by the JCPOA and resolution 2231 (2015) should not be abandoned. Key principles, such as the step-by-step and reciprocal approach and a balance of rights and obligations, remain equally valid. We must continue to take a holistic approach to the goals of nuclear non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Iran should continue to honour its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. All parties should fully respect Iran’s right to pursue the peaceful uses of nuclear energy as a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Dame Barbara Woodward (United Kingdom): I would like to start by welcoming the presence of the representative of Iran at this meeting. The United Kingdom voted against draft resolution S/2025/539. First, as the Council knows, Iran is defying the global non-proliferation regime. Iran’s nuclear escalation, as detailed in over 60 reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over the past six years, is a threat to international peace and security. Iran’s actions mean that the IAEA is not able to confirm that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful. Among the steps Iran has taken is the accumulation of a highly enriched uranium stockpile, which lacks any credible civilian justification and is unprecedented for a State without a nuclear weapons programme. Secondly, we have engaged tirelessly in diplomatic efforts to resolve concerns and bring Iran back into compliance with its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). We regret that Iran has continued to block progress in recent months. This includes failing to resume full cooperation with the IAEA and giving no clarity on when inspections at all nuclear sites can resume. The IAEA has also not had access to the highly enriched uranium stockpile for over three months, nor has Iran provided the reports required by the IAEA on the status of the stockpile. It is also clear from the Supreme Leader’s public remarks this week that Iran is not willing to consider direct negotiations with the United States. As a result, the Council does not have the necessary assurance that there is a clear path to a swift diplomatic solution. Thirdly, in its vote last week (see S/PV.10001), the Council fulfilled the necessary steps of the snapback process set out in resolution 2231 (2015). Therefore, United Nations sanctions targeting Iranian proliferation will be reimposed this weekend. All Member States are obliged to fully comply with these sanctions, as required by the Charter of the United Nations. I reiterate, however, that the United Kingdom remains committed to pursuing a diplomatic solution that ensures that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon, while maintaining Iran’s right to a civil nuclear programme, in line with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Our commitment to diplomacy remains steadfast and is not exhausted. We stand ready to continue discussions with Iran on a diplomatic solution to address international concerns about its nuclear programme. In turn, this could allow for the lifting of sanctions in the future.

Let me also start by welcoming the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to this meeting. Iran has been in non-compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action since 2019, and the expiration date of the agreement has been known to all of us for the past decade. The activation of the snapback mechanism was not a hasty decision, nor was it taken lightly, but there was no alternative in this situation. For these reasons, Denmark voted against this draft resolution. Our vote should not be mistaken for opposition to diplomacy — quite the contrary. It is because we value genuine negotiations that we could not support a text that, in our view, undermined the possibility of ensuring a result that delivers on the overarching goal that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. Extending deadlines does not strengthen diplomacy. Delays do not encourage compromise. Denmark’s strong belief in the power of diplomacy remains, also after the sanctions are reimposed. We sincerely hope that Iran will change its nuclear course and return to the negotiating table in good faith.

As we made clear last week (see S/PV.10001), the United States supports the case that France, Germany and the United Kingdom — the E3 — made for Iran’s significant and continuing non-performance of its nuclear commitments, and we support the reimposition of pre-2015 United Nations sanctions on Iran, in accordance with the process laid out in resolution 2231 (2015). The reimposition of these measures, which will go into effect the evening of 27 September, is not arbitrary. Those measures are narrowly scoped to address the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear, missile and conventional arms programmes and support for terrorism, and snapback of these measures does not preclude removal through diplomacy, but at this stage, there is no basis for changing course. Despite suggestions to the contrary, Iran has still failed to address the E3’s concerns regarding its highly enriched uranium stockpile, compliance with its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) obligations and resumption of direct diplomacy with the United States. We are pleased that the Council rejected this last-ditch effort by the Russian Federation and China to call into question these facts and to suggest that an extension would be warranted. The Russian Federation-China text (S/2025/539) is a hollow effort to relieve Iran of any accountability for its continued, significant non-performance of its nuclear commitments, and all without requiring tangible diplomatic progress. If the Russian Federation and China want to help realize a durable, negotiated outcome on the Iranian nuclear issue, rather than seek to bolster an untenable status quo of flagrant Iranian efforts to undermine the global non-proliferation regime, then they must press leaders in Tehran to take meaningful, immediate steps to fulfil its commitments and obligations, including by fully cooperating with the IAEA.

I thank you, Mr. President, for scheduling this meeting to vote on the draft resolution submitted by Russia and China (S/2025/539), and we thank them both. We welcome the participation of Based on our firm conviction that political and diplomatic efforts constitute the only way to reach a peaceful and lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, Algeria voted in favour of the draft resolution, which provides for a technical extension to resolution 2231 (2015). This measure constitutes a necessary step to provide the requisite amount of time that could allow for the resumption of negotiations among all parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Indeed, we regret the failure of the Security Council to adopt this text. By failing to do so, our Council will have missed another opportunity to encourage dialogue, de-escalate tensions and clear the way for diplomatic action. As we have consistently and insistently stressed, any alternative to a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue poses risks that could have grave repercussions for the Middle East region and for international peace and security. There is no doubt that the recent talks and consultations between the various stakeholders in this issue, including the practical arrangements reached by Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency on 9 September, prove that dialogue and political and diplomatic efforts aimed at finding a solution through negotiations are still possible. Despite the Security Council’s failure to adopt the draft resolution today, Algeria reiterates its call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint, avoid further escalatory measures and engage constructively in good-faith negotiations in order to reach a comprehensive, lasting and appropriate solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.

Pakistan voted in favour of the draft resolution (S/2025/539). Our position on this matter is based on our strong belief that diplomacy and dialogue should remain the guiding principle for the resolution of outstanding issues concerning Iran’s nuclear programme. We strongly support the basic premise of the draft resolution, which is to allow more time for diplomatic efforts through a technical extension of resolution 2231 (2015). In the Council’s consideration of this issue, we repeatedly heard members lending support to diplomacy and a negotiated solution of the Iranian nuclear issue. We also consistently heard that there was not enough time to reach a diplomatic solution and that talks needed more time. We have come to a stage at which buying more time would be a critically important prerequisite for moving forward. With this in mind, the only logical step, in our view, would be a technical extension of resolution 2231 (2015). Such a decision would not impinge on any party’s rights or responsibilities but provide more time for diplomatic efforts to find a lasting solution acceptable to all States and for reaching consensus within the Council. Pakistan has consistently advocated the primacy of diplomatic engagement and the imperative of avoiding confrontation and conflict. In our view, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) provided the best blueprint for a resolution of the Iran nuclear issue, outlining the rights, commitments, obligations and responsibilities of the relevant parties. The spirit and basic framework of the JCPOA could still prove useful if there is a mutual desire to move forward in a spirit of compromise. Just like any international agreement, the implementation of the JCPOA is the shared responsibility of all parties concerned. Any disputes and differences arising from its implementation should be resolved in a cooperative manner, without resorting to extreme measures. We believe that coercive measures would not resolve outstanding issues but would complicate them further. Sanctions would directly hurt ordinary Iranians and diminish the prospects for regional connectivity, trade and economic development. The imposition of sanctions would not just be damaging for the targeted country but would also affect its neighbourhood and beyond.

Mr. President, Ambassador Jihoon Cha, since this is the first time I am taking the floor since your arrival, allow me to extend to you a warm welcome to the Security Council and the United Nations. I also acknowledge the presence of the representative of Iran in this meeting. Guyana recognizes the urgency and importance of addressing the Iranian nuclear issue, and we appreciate the efforts of the penholders, China and the Russian Federation, to give breathing space for diplomacy. We reiterate our position that multilateralism and diplomacy must be fully utilized to resolve complex international issues, such as the one being discussed today. Our view is that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) remains a crucial instrument for ensuring the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme and for promoting regional and international security. We took note of the positive elements contained in the draft resolution (S/2025/539), including its call for the immediate resumption of negotiations among all original participants in the JCPOA and its welcoming of the recent agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, since this is the second draft resolution on the issue in just a week, brought by different parties to the JCPOA, it is clear that there are differences in approach on how to address the underlying issues that have stalled progress in implementing the JCPOA as endorsed in resolution 2231 (2015). Guyana is therefore of the view that a technical extension may not be enough to make progress. We believe a more comprehensive approach, involving all participants, is required to foster a lasting diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. We urge all parties to engage in good faith to resolve their differences and security concerns by prioritizing dialogue as a matter of urgency. The path of dialogue and mutual respect is the only way to achieve a durable solution that is in the best interests of all. Dialogue, however, requires first and foremost an agreement among the concerned parties to have that dialogue. Without such a foundation, in the spirit of mutual respect and shared purpose, the conversation takes another form. With the approaches taken on this file — one draft resolution last week (S/2025/561), another today — one must question whether at this time we have a true commitment to dialogue. It is with this consideration and with the hope that the parties can come to an agreement on the way forward that Guyana abstained in the voting on the draft resolution. In conclusion, Guyana reaffirms its commitment to working with all Council members to ensure that all concerns relating to the Iranian nuclear issue can be expeditiously resolved.

I thank the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation for submitting the draft resolution (S/2025/539) and for their continued engagement in seeking a diplomatic solution to this complex and sensitive matter. Their initiative has created an opportunity for dialogue among all involved parties, which Sierra Leone strongly supports. We also welcome the participation of the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran in today’s meeting. Sierra Leone once again notes the broader geopolitical context in which the Security Council has been called on to discharge its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations, namely maintaining international peace and security and addressing threats thereto. We are mindful of the provisions of the Charter and of international law that provide for lawful redress for internationally wrongful acts of States, including in the present context concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran. Compliance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its safeguards, including unrestricted IAEA monitoring, is essential to building trust, strengthening confidence and ensuring regional stability. We therefore welcome reports that Iran and the IAEA have signed an agreement aimed at resuming cooperation after a period of suspension. This agreement, concluded on 9 September and facilitated by the Arab Republic of Egypt, outlines practical steps for implementing safeguards and enhancing transparency regarding Iran’s nuclear facilities. It represents a significant strand of the ongoing negotiations — a step towards rebuilding trust, addressing Iran’s security concerns and ensuring compliance with the Agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. However, while recognizing the stated aim of the draft — to create space for negotiations through a six-month technical extension of arrangements linked to resolution 2231 (2015) — we note that the proposal does not offer tangible outcomes, specifically concrete and time-bound steps that restore access, lower enrichment levels and rebuild continuity of knowledge. It is in this context, and with the understanding that Iran retains the opportunity for redress under international law, that Sierra Leone cannot agree to the text as it stands. On this issue, we believe that the principle of non-proliferation carries much greater weight given the potential consequences. The associated risks remain high, and without verifiable measures to address them, the credibility of the non-proliferation regime is undermined. We underscore that our vote today is not intended to support the imposition of sanctions but rather to ensure that negotiations proceed in good faith and in full cooperation with the IAEA. It reflects our conviction that diplomacy must deliver results that preserve peace, restore confidence and strengthen regional stability. We urge all the original participants in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to immediately resume negotiations related to resolution 2231 (2015). These elements together will create the conditions to de-escalate tensions, sequence concrete confidence-building steps and bring this file back under effective verification. The regional situation remains fragile, and further destabilization would only worsen the overall outlook. We call on all concerned parties to exercise maximum restraint and support de-escalation efforts. A time-bound, negotiated diplomatic solution remains the only sustainable and viable path to resolving this matter of international peace and security. Sierra Leone will continue to work with all Council members to shape a balanced outcome that preserves the global non-proliferation regime, upholds the authority of the Council and supports regional stability through a credible, results-oriented process under resolution 2231 (2015).

In our statements in the Security Council on this matter, we have consistently reiterated our conviction that diplomatic dialogue is the only way to reach fair, lasting and sustainable agreements. We have also strongly advocated for negotiation, respect for international law and the strengthening of multilateralism. Our country shares the concerns about the progress of Iran’s nuclear programme and recognizes the geopolitical tensions in that context, which make it clear that much remains to be done in that regard. We reiterate our respectful call on the Islamic Republic of Iran to engage fully and constructively with the International Atomic Energy Agency and return to its obligations and commitments to ensure access, transparency and effective oversight in order to restore confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its programme. We find ourselves at a delicate moment in which we must act responsibly to avoid weakening the international non-proliferation regime and prevent consequences that could be deadly for the region. Today, on the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, Panama firmly reaffirms its commitment to peace, global security and nuclear disarmament. Our country, consistent with its role as a bridge between nations, will continue to work alongside the international community to ensure respect for international law and the strengthening of global governance on non-proliferation, guaranteeing that future generations inherit a safer planet.

I would like to welcome you, Mr. President, to the Security Council. I would also like to welcome the presence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran. It is very important for the Security Council to be able to discuss and assess, now and in the future, all initiatives regarding the Iranian nuclear programme and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action under resolution 2231 (2015). I think we can all agree on that. I wish to make the following points and expand on the reasons why Greece voted the way it did. First, I wish to once again reiterate Greece’s concern about the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. Non-proliferation is among the basic pillars of international security. It is of paramount importance. Its preservation and continued universality is in the interest of all States. Granting an unconditional extension now would only postpone the problem and shift the focus away from the difficult but necessary negotiations that are long overdue. We need meaningful negotiations and a peaceful solution. The time for that is now. Secondly and consequently, allow me to stress in the strongest possible terms that diplomacy must continue irrespective of the present state of negotiations. We do realize that, at this hour, this may sound difficult, if not impossible. However, it is necessary. Thirdly, we are still in the high-level week. All the interested parties are still in the same building. We strongly urge all the sides to begin talks again and, if need be, again after that. Fourthly and lastly, even if an agreement is not reached immediately, we call upon all the primary concerned parties to keep talking. A viable and sustainable solution for the Iranian nuclear issue can come only through diplomacy and dialogue. We believe that a peaceful solution through meaningful negotiations is still within reach. An agreement will be good for all. The stakes are too high otherwise. Ten years ago, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) brought about a robust regime that comprehensively addressed a pressing international security issue. It has suffered some hard blows throughout the past years. Slovenia regretted the United States’ withdrawal from the plan and Iran’s cessation of its implementation. We remain concerned with the scope and transparency of Iran’s nuclear programme, especially the stockpile of highly enriched uranium. We have called out Iran’s unacceptable disregard for its non-proliferation obligations, and we have also called out the equally unacceptable attack on its nuclear facilities. Slovenia voted against the draft resolution (S/2025/539) because it merely decides on a technical extension of the 10-year term defined by the resolution 2231 (2015). It does not address any specific steps or conditions that would restore trust in the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear programme or restore trust between the JCPOA participants. Such an extension, if it is to provide space for diplomacy and encourage substantial negotiations, should come with precisely defined commitments and conditions to be met. We regret that this is not the case. The draft resolution seemed to do little else than divide, and this is at a time when we should be uniting our forces in the interest of peace. The JCPOA truly was a landmark achievement of multilateralism. Slovenia wishes to see its regime and objectives meaningfully restored. There is no other solution to the challenge of Iran’s nuclear programme. We call on all sides to engage in diplomacy, even after the sanctions snapback tomorrow. We call on all to engage seriously and without preconditions.

We are grateful to our Security Council colleagues who supported the draft resolution submitted by the Russian Federation and China (S/2025/539) on the technical extension of resolution 2231 (2015) for a period of six months, until April 2026, and for the immediate resumption of negotiations in the format involving the initial parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to find a way out of the crisis around it. Those Council members who supported this document reaffirmed their commitment to international law, equal and mutually respectful dialogue, and to the task of maintaining international peace and security. If adopted, this document could have preserved the chance for the international community to reach a diplomatic solution to the conflict in the context of Iran’s nuclear programme. We regret that a number of our Council colleagues were unable to summon the courage or the wisdom to support our draft resolution. Their abstention shows, at the very least, their doubts vis-à-vis the destructive policy pursued by the United States, the United Kingdom and France to definitively dismantle the nuclear deal and to bury the diplomatic path to addressing the crisis around it. However, one way or another, by voting as they did, they have become complicit in this. As for those who refused to support our draft, there are no longer any illusions about them. Those countries have definitively demonstrated that all their assurances about their commitment to a diplomatic solution to the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme for all these years were nothing but lip service. And from the statement made by the representative of France before the voting, which was a regrettable attempt at self-justification, it was clear that honesty, common sense and decency are values that our Western colleagues have completely neglected. Moreover, those who voted against our draft resolution also voted against Iran’s continued cooperation with the IAEA, which the text explicitly and unequivocally called for in operative paragraph 2. So, if problems now arise in this connection, colleagues will have only Turning now to the statements made by the United Kingdom and France about their alleged triggering of a “snapback”, we categorically reject them as invalid. In that connection, we have repeatedly set out our arguments in detail, in particular in the joint letter from the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Russia, China and Iran on 28 August (S/2025/546, annex), which was circulated to the Council. A party that routinely violates an agreement cannot avail itself of the mechanisms enshrined therein. International law, in particular the “clean hands doctrine,” the principle of pacta sunt servanda and the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice, also so affirms. This is also borne out by logic, basic fairness and common sense. Therefore, irrespective of what our British and French colleagues may assert, their complaint cannot serve as a basis for any decisions or action taken by the Council. Accordingly, from both a procedural and political standpoint, the outcome of today’s vote means one thing: since the Security Council has not decided in favour of a technical extension of resolution 2231 (2015), it will expire in accordance with the terms that it sets out — on the day when the JCPOA expires, 18 October 2025. Thereafter, any restrictions and rules set forth therein, including those relating to Iran’s nuclear programme, will cease to be relevant. As I already noted today, there has not been, nor will there be, a “snapback”. Any attempts to “revive” the anti-Iranian Council resolutions that were in force prior to 2015 are null and void. I would like to stress, separately, that the Secretariat, naturally, has no grounds for renewing the relevant mandates. Any attempt to do so would constitute a violation of Article 100 of the Charter of the United Nations and would compel us to seriously reconsider our relations with the Secretariat. Russia and China have done their utmost to avert an adverse situation from arising vis-à-vis the JCPOA and to give diplomacy a chance. All responsibility for any consequences of today’s vote — both as regards the situation on the ground and for the Council’s future endeavours — now lies squarely with those States that did not support our draft resolution.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of the Republic of Korea. The Republic of Korea has firmly supported a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue and has been duly discharging its responsibility as President of the Security Council in accordance with resolution 2231 (2015). On Friday, the Republic of Korea abstained from voting (see S/PV.10001) in consideration of our role as President of the Council. Today we are doing so again and wish to note one very important point: the key objective of resolution 2231 (2015), which was supported by all relevant parties, is non-proliferation. Accordingly, diplomatic efforts should focus on that common objective, yet this endeavour is not clearly reflected in the draft reports. As we have reverted to a landscape prior to resolution 2231 (2015), the Republic of Korea urges all parties to rekindle the spirit of rigorous diplomacy that produced resolution 2231 (2015) and to demonstrate their commitment to non-proliferation through tangible action. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. I give the floor to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Let me begin by expressing our appreciation to Algeria, China, Pakistan and the Russian Federation for voting in favour of draft resolution S/2025/539 in support of diplomacy, the rule of law and Iran has been a long-standing party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) since 1970 and has acted as a responsible member ever since. We have pursued our inalienable right, as prescribed under the Treaty, to peaceful nuclear energy in all transparency and readiness to address every question in good faith. Twelve years ago, the five permanent members of the Security Council, Germany and Iran engaged with Foreign Ministers meeting here, at the United Nations, agreeing to seek a solution to the nuclear programme. After two years of serious negotiations, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was concluded — a landmark achieve­ ment in multilateral diplomacy, unanimously endorsed by resolution 2231 (2015). Iran fully implemented the deal, as confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 15 consecutive reports. No country’s nuclear programme has ever been subjected to such rigorous inspections. Yet, in May 2018, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, in clear violation of resolution 2231 (2015) and international law, and began bullying other Governments to follow suit. It presented no reason or justification. Yet Iran remained fully compliant relying on European promises that their compensatory measures would protect the fundamental bargain established by the accord, whereby Iran would agree to voluntary restrictions in exchange for the lifting of sanctions and other tangible economic dividends for the Iranian people. After more than a year of patience and after the E3 — France, Germany and the United Kingdom — and had made clear that it would not — or could not — honour any of its promises, Iran was compelled to adopt remedial measures and reduced its commitments in accordance with its rights recognized under the JCPOA. Iran’s measures were lawful, gradual and fully consistent with its rights under the JCPOA and resolution 2231 (2015). More importantly, they were designed to re-establish the fundamental premise of the 2015 accord. Today’s situation is the direct consequence of the United States withdrawal from the JCPOA and the failure of the E3 and the European Union to take any effective action to uphold their commitments. The United States has betrayed diplomacy, but it is the E3 that has buried it. This sordid mess did not come about overnight. Both the E3 and the United States consistently misrepresented Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme. In doing so, they have been parroting the Israeli regime’s baseless allegations. This is doubly heinous, as the Israeli regime — the occupying genocidal regime — is the only possessor of nuclear weapons in our region. The double standards at play are appalling and painfully obvious for the world to witness. Iran categorically rejects weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. These weapons are inhuman and contrary to Islamic teachings and our defence doctrine. This principled position has been reaffirmed by Iran’s supreme leader in a recent address. Yet, despite decades of unlawful sanctions, assassinations of nuclear scientists and now outright bombings of our peaceful nuclear facilities, Iran has not violated the JCPOA, the NPT or its safeguards commitments. While having unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA and bullied others to follow suit, President Trump called for dialogue upon his return to the White House earlier this year, and Iran responded in good faith. Five rounds of talks were held. On the eve of the sixth session, Israel, with the backing of the United States, attacked IAEA-monitored nuclear facilities in my country. The criminal Israeli regime Iran, by contrast, chose diplomacy. On 9 September, in Cairo, I signed a memorandum with the Director General of the IAEA. The measure was welcomed by the Agency and the wider international community. Yet, it was immediately met with unconstructive approaches from the United States and the E3. Here in New York, Iran again put forward several constructive proposals to avert an unnecessary and avoidable crisis. All were ignored. I must remind the representative of France that, two nights ago, I agreed a framework agreement with his Minister for Foreign Affairs, but he was not able to get the agreement of the United States. The E3 and the United States acted in bad faith, claiming to support diplomacy while in effect blocking it. Regrettably, the E3 chose to follow the whims of Washington rather than exercising their independent sovereign discretion. The persistent negation of the United States of all initiatives to keep the window for diplomacy open proved once again that negotiations with the United States lead nowhere other than a dead end, as also pronounced by Iran’s supreme leader. The draft resolution submitted by China and Russia is a responsible move to prevent escalation and provide time and space for diplomacy. They have negotiated constructively and shown flexibility to reach consensus. The E3 and the United States regrettably rejected Russia and China’s fair initiative and pressured other Council members not to support it. Their words do not correspond with their actions. Their objective is to foment a crisis, not to jump-start diplomacy. By blocking this initiative, the United States and the E3 have deepened divisions in the Council, weakened its credibility and closed the window of opportunity they claim to seek. Iran’s position on the E3’s pursuit of the so-called snapback is clear and consistent. It is legally void, politically reckless and procedurally flawed. We have conveyed this legal position, supported by well-documented evidence and arguments, in several letters to the President of the Council and the Secretary-General. Together with Russia and China, Iran has also demonstrated the unlawful and provocative nature of the E3’s measures – most recently in the joint letter of 28 August (S/2025/540). That joint position made it clear that the E3’s communication of 28 August to the Council President (S/2025/538) cannot, under any circumstances, be regarded as a valid notification under operative paragraph 11 of resolution 2231 (2015). Iran has no obligations thereunder because the E3 breached their obligations under the JCPOA and resolution 2231 (2015), thereby losing any right to claim significant non-performance. Their invocation of the so-called snapback mechanism is simply a stark abuse of process. The draft resolution on which the Council voted on 19 September (S/2025/561) did not meet the requirements of resolution 2231 (2015) and cannot restore terminated sanctions that have already ended. Likewise, the draft resolution put forward by the Republic of Korea, on which the Council President abstained, carries no legitimacy. Attempts by Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the United States to revive terminated sanctions are therefore null and void. Resolution 2231 (2015) must expire in line with the agreed time frame. All nuclear-related restrictions under resolution 2231 (2015) will end permanently on 18 October. Iran, along with many other countries, will not recognize any attempt to extend, revive or enforce them after that date. We call on the President of the Security Council to declare today’s decision illegal. We also call on the Secretary-General to The developments we have witnessed set a dangerous precedent. If agreements can be broken at will, no nation can trust international commitments. If unlawful measures are enforced by power instead of law, the Security Council risks losing credibility and authority. Such a situation would harm not only Iran but the entire system of international law and collective security. The E3 and the United States bear full responsibility for the serious consequences of today’s decision. By ignoring facts, spreading false claims, misrepresenting Iran’s peaceful programme and blocking diplomacy, they have actively and intently paved the way for a dangerous escalation. Just as military attacks have failed to reach any of their declared objectives, the so-called snapback mechanism will fail too. The only solution is dialogue. The JCPOA proves this. Iran will never respond to threats or pressure. We respond only to respect. Today’s decision has obliterated whatever remaining trust the Iranian people had in the promises of the West, particularly the E3. The Islamic Republic of Iran bases its foreign policy on the wishes and sentiments of its people. It is the prerogative of the E3 and the United States to correct course and take meaningful action to build confidence and trust. In the meantime, we must adhere to what international law and the Charter of the United Nations make abundantly clear: obligations cannot arise from invalid procedures or lack of consensus within the Security Council.

The representative of France has asked for the floor to make a further statement.

I will be brief. A delegation has questioned the honesty of the French delegation in its remarks. My delegation simply wishes to remind that delegation that, as someone once said, facts are stubborn things, and the facts are as follows. First, the first fact is that Iran is not complying with the obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and an agreement signed by Iran. The second fact is that, over the past few days, there have been intensive discussions between the Minister, whose presence here I welcome, and the delegations from the E3 — France, Germany and the United Kingdom — in particular, to find a way to avoid reinstating the sanctions. These negotiations failed because Iran was unwilling, and I repeat the fact, to comply with three demands arising directly from its obligations. The first demand, I repeat, is the resumption of effective cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. This cooperation has not been resumed because the inspectors are not in Iran and are not at the sites they should be able to visit. The second demand is for clarity concerning the stockpile of 60 per cent enriched uranium, which has no justification in a civilian nuclear programme. This report has not been presented. The third demand is for the resumption of negotiations on the substance and not on the conditions of the negotiations. Secondly, one delegation called into question the Secretariat. This is against the rules, which provide that the Secretariat should not receive instructions from Governments but should discharge its obligations, which it does in a completely professional manner and with respect for its responsibilities. Thirdly, I would like to conclude by saying that the path of negotiation is still open. And, as far as France is concerned, but more broadly as far as the E3 and the European Union are concerned, we are continuing to negotiate on the basis we have set out, with, I repeat, the aim of ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme complies with its obligations under the NPT and with the goal of a purely civilian programme.

I would like to very briefly react to the statements made by my French colleague. His explanations now sound even less convincing than before. Therefore, I would suggest that he not take the floor anymore. He is only digging himself into a deeper hole. He has cited alleged facts that have no basis in reality, forgetting to mention the most important thing, which was voiced today by the Iranian Minister for Foreign Affairs and which concerns his country directly. I refer to the fact that there was a draft agreement between Iran and the E3 — France, Germany and the United Kingdom —, which was supposed to be approved and subsequently prevent the crisis. However, his big brothers in the United States did not allow him to go ahead with this agreement. He forgot to mention this, which eloquently illustrates how genuinely independent his country is today in the international arena. As regards his claims vis-à-vis the Secretariat, I would like to remind him that one delegation already tried to trigger a snapback, attempting to do so in circumstances that were absolutely identical to those we have today, when there was no consensus in the Security Council on whether there is a legal foundation for this procedure. Back then, the Office of Legal Affairs and the Secretariat decided that, in the absence of unity in the Council, they could not resume sanctions nor reinstate sanctions committees that had already been abolished. We see no difference between that situation and the current one. Therefore, we are confident that the Secretariat will make the right decision and will not succumb to the pressure exerted by him, not by us, because we stand on the side of common sense and international law, whereas he is trying to impose on everyone a rules-based order that he himself is trying to formulate on the fly right now, in this Chamber.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran has asked for the floor to make a further statement.

I will be very brief. I think that, in response to what the French representative said, the Russian colleague said what had to be said. I have only one or two points. He claimed that the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are not in Iran, but this is absolutely wrong. They are now in Iran inspecting our nuclear facilities pursuant to the agreement I made with Rafael Grossi, the Director General of the IAEA, which was signed in Cairo. There is a procedure for these inspections, agreed between Iran and the Agency, and everything is proceeding exactly according to what I agreed with the Agency. Secondly, he mentioned that Iran has not responded to any proposals. This is exactly the other way around. I have made, in the past four or five days here, several proposals and none of them were accepted. Actually, as I said before, one of them was agreed between Iran and the French delegation but then the French delegation could not deliver on that. Therefore, these claims are all false, as are the other claims that he made. I do not want to take up time in the Security Council meeting, but I would like to emphasize that Iran has been always ready to prove that its nuclear programme is peaceful and would remain peaceful forever. What we agreed in 2015 as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is proof that Iran has good faith. We negotiated that deal in good faith. We concluded that deal in good faith, and we implemented that deal in good faith. It was the United States that withdrew, not Iran. Once, we negotiated and they withdrew. This year, we negotiated, and they attacked us. This is the situation. Still, when I came here, I came with very constructive proposals. Before I came here I signed an agreement with the Agency in Cairo, and the Director General of the Agency was quite satisfied and happy. The cooperation between Iran and the Agency is now proceeding based on that agreement and, as I said, the inspectors are right now in Iran doing their job. I made proposals that were unfortunately rejected, and I would be available to give the details of those proposals to the delegations who are interested, later on in our bilateral meetings.