The Security Council today failed to adopt a resolution that would have extended the mandate of the Panel of Experts tasked with monitoring implementation of United Nations sanctions on Iran, as Council members continued to be divided on whether those sanctions are in force at all.
In 2015, the Council endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — which provided sanctions relief to Iran in exchange for a 10-year monitoring framework and limits to its nuclear programme — when it adopted resolution 2231 (2015). That text also provided for a “snapback” mechanism, by which UN sanctions would automatically be reinstated in the event of non-compliance. In May 2018, the United States withdrew from the Plan; Iran retaliated by reducing its commitments.
In September 2025 — shortly before the expiry of the 10-year framework — Plan signatories France, Germany and the United Kingdom cited Tehran’s alleged non-compliance and held that the “snapback” mechanism had been triggered. As the Council failed to adopt a resolution to continue sanctions relief, it was informed by the UN Secretariat that previously lifted UN sanctions were re-applied on 27 September 2025. This would also restore the Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737 (2006) to report on Iran’s nuclear programme.
However, the Russian Federation and China disagreed that the mechanism had been triggered, pointing to reasons including the United States’ withdrawal from the Plan. Since then, the Council has been unable to agree, and these divisions have played out, in March, June, July and earlier in September. Each of these meetings was preceded by a procedural vote over whether to hold them at all, and the results have been consistent: 11 in favour to 2 against (China, Russian Federation), with 2 abstentions (Pakistan, Somalia).
Today’s meeting began with such a procedural vote, and the results were the same. The Council then voted on the draft resolution concerning the 1737 Committee’s Panel of Experts, which — because it, too, yielded the same result as the procedural one — was not adopted owing to the negative vote of two permanent members.
Panel Essential for Sanctions Monitoring
Afterwards, the representative of the United States — whose delegation submitted the draft — said that she was “not surprised” that the text was vetoed. The Panel would have “shined a light on the prohibited bilateral defensive cooperation between Iran and its partners”, she said, adding that this is part of a broader effort to stifle reporting “that implicates their own activities in support of rogue regimes”.
She emphasized: “Panels have learned the hard way that calling out members of this body for sanctions violations or evasion can have serious — and sometimes tragic — consequences.” She said that, “without an independent Panel of Experts, this Council loses its principal source of impartial, evidence-based reporting on sanctions violations — creating a monitoring gap that only benefits the Iranian regime and those who profit from evading those measures”.
“Despite efforts by some members to rewrite history and ignore binding Council resolutions, the sanctions against Iran remain in force,” emphasized Latvia’s representative. She concurred that today’s outcome is part of a deliberate pattern of weakening UN sanctions architecture “for the benefit of one Member State”. She, along with several others, pointed out that today’s result is “similar to Russia’s veto” on the mandate renewal for the sanctions committee concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — “another partner in its illegal aggression against Ukraine”.
Many speakers pointed to the informational vacuum, with Panama’s representative stressing that Panels of Experts play a crucial role in enabling Member States to make “well-founded, consistent decisions” by collecting, verifying and independently analysing information. Stating that his country considers the Committee restored following the “snapback” of sanctions, he expressed regret that it will be “forced to continue to exercise its mandate without the support of a Panel of Experts that is fully operational”.
Speakers Warn of Monitoring Gap
Colombia’s representative agreed, as failing to renew the Panel’s mandate deprives the Council of information useful for decision-making and a diplomatic path to resolving a conflict that has reached “unsustainable” levels. He also said that the absence or suspension of a subsidiary body does not affect the legality of the underlying sanctions regime. As such, after almost a decade of suspension, the Committee “needs this technical, independent information at a critical time, at which a regional conflict is escalating to the international level”.
Similarly, the representative of Greece said the Committee needs institutional and technical tools to carry out its mandate, including a functioning Panel of Experts. Without it, he warned that both the Committee’s efficacy and the Council’s ability to oversee sanctions implementation are “diminished”. He also said that sanctions mechanisms are “neither an alternative to diplomacy nor an end in themselves”, and that a “comprehensive, verifiable and durable diplomatic solution” is the only way to sustainably address concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme.
Recalling that the Council established the Committee in 2006, and its Panel of Experts in 2010, due to “grave concerns” over Iran’s nuclear programme, the representative of the United Kingdom pointed out that China and the Russian Federation voted in favour of both. Now, 20 years later, “we are again seeing Iran refusing to comply with the basic legal requirements of legitimate civil nuclear activity”, and she expressed regret over today’s vetoes that “shield Iran” and undermine the Council’s work to ensure that Tehran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.
Building on that, Denmark’s representative said that what should have been a technical rollover was prevented by the unwillingness of some Council members to acknowledge that the “snapback” mechanism was activated in full accordance with resolution 2231 (2015). That text was adopted unanimously, including by “the very same countries that are now preventing its implementation”, she stressed. Nevertheless, she underscored: “Our goal remains very clear — Iran must never develop or otherwise acquire a nuclear weapon.”
Calls for Effective Sanctions Implementation
The representative of France, Council President for September, spoke in his national capacity to emphasize Paris’ commitment to “efforts to find a lasting, verifiable agreement guaranteeing that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon”. Stressing that the decision by his country and others to invoke the “snapback” mechanism was not taken “just like that” — but, rather, after “months of sterile negotiations” with Iran in Geneva that demonstrated Tehran’s “obstinate refusal to cooperate” — he said that today’s veto deprives the Council of an indispensable tool to ensure that its decisions are implemented.
Nevertheless, Bahrain’s representative said that failure to adopt today’s draft resolution “does not change the facts”, underscoring that the Council “must implement its resolutions”. It must establish an independent technical mechanism to support the Committee, monitor the implementation of sanctions and assess non-compliance. “This is of greater importance in light of the regional repercussions of Iranian activities,” he stressed, stating that his and other countries in the region have been “continuously attacked” by Iran — which the Council condemned through resolution 2817 (2026).
Russian Federation, China Dispute ‘Snapback’
The representative of the Russian Federation rejected the premise that the “snapback” mechanism had been validly triggered, stating that Berlin, London and Paris “did not have the right nor the justification” to invoke it. He added that today’s draft is “deeply flawed” and without legal basis, stressing that the United States’ choice of confrontation is increasing political and procedural tensions within the Council.
Further, he said that Western countries are pursuing escalation with regard to Iran’s nuclear programme. “The destructive path of our Western colleagues [is] determined purely by their economic interests in exerting pressure on [Iran] alone,” he said. He stressed that “the only way to resolve disagreements” over Iran’s nuclear programme is through political and diplomatic efforts that account for all parties’ interests and Tehran’s legitimate rights.
China’s representative said that any Council action should “help facilitate negotiations among the parties on equal footing and enable them to find the greatest common ground while accommodating each other’s legitimate concerns”. He also stated that resolution 2231 (2015) “terminated” on 18 October 2025 and that the Council has “ceased its consideration of the Iranian nuclear issue”. Now, a long-term agreement should be reached through diplomatic efforts, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) providing “strict safeguards”, he said.
Meanwhile, the representative of Pakistan — whose delegation abstained — pointed out that consideration of the Iranian nuclear issue has “clearly come a long way from the spirit of cooperation and peaceful settlement of disputes that characterized the adoption of resolution 2231 (2015)”. Expressing regret that “the non-consensual path was chosen, with far-reaching consequences”, he said that diplomacy and dialogue “remain the guiding principle for resolution of outstanding issues concerning Iran’s nuclear programme”.