With Security Council members locked into disagreement on whether sanctions concerning Iran’s nuclear programme have snapped back or not, some speakers stressed the need to appoint experts to support that sanctions committee even as others insisted that the Council stop considering this agenda item at all.
In 2015, the Council endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — a historic agreement that provided sanctions relief to Iran in exchange for a 10-year monitoring framework and limits to its nuclear programme. It also provided for a “snapback” mechanism according to which sanctions would be reinstated if Tehran failed to fulfil obligations. In May 2018, the United States withdrew from the Agreement; Iran retaliated by reducing its commitments.
In September 2025, France, Germany and the United Kingdom cited Tehran’s alleged violations of the Agreement and argued that the “snapback” mechanism had been triggered, which would restore the sanctions and the 1737 Committee — established in 2006 — to report on Iran’s nuclear programme.
However, the Russian Federation and China disagreed that the mechanism had been triggered, pointing to the United States’ withdrawal from the Plan. Since then, the Council has been unable to agree on whether the 1737 Committee’s mandate is valid. Due to this stalemate, it has not elected a Chair for the Committee and been unable to appoint a Panel of Experts to monitor the implementation of sanctions. The situation has become more politically charged in recent months, after military strikes on Iran by the United States and Israel in February, as well as Iran’s counterattacks against its neighbours.
Today’s meeting began with a procedural vote, requested by the Russian Federation. By a vote of 11 in favour to 2 against (Russian Federation, China) with 2 abstentions (Somalia, Pakistan), the Council decided to adopt the provisional agenda of today’s meeting.
Moscow, Beijing Reject Premise of Meeting, as France, United Kingdom, United States Warn against Iran’s Nuclear Escalation
Prior to the adoption, the representatives of Russian Federation and China said that the expiry of Council resolution 2231 (2025) on 18 October 2025 removed the Iranian nuclear issue from the Council’s consideration. However, the representatives of France, United Kingdom and the United States advocated for holding the meeting. The latter stated that “China and the Russian Federation want to undermine the implementation of this Council’s resolutions”, so they can protect Iran. She further emphasized: “The facts are facts. The 1737 Committee exists.”
“Iran chose a path of nuclear escalation” instead of complying with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the representative of the United Kingdom said during the meeting. Tehran has expanded its nuclear programme in ways “that lack any credible civilian justification”, she added.
“More than one year ago now”, said France’s delegate, Council President for September, speaking in his national capacity, “Iran suspended all corporation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in flagrant violation of its safeguards obligations.” The accumulation of highly enriched uranium has no credible civilian justification, he stressed, adding that the amount represents a quantity that can potentially produce 10 explosive nuclear devices. He expressed support for the draft resolution prepared by the United States to extend the mandate of the Panel of Experts.
The representative of the United States cited IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi extensively, noting that the Agency has not received information from Iran regarding the status of its declared nuclear materials or facilities. The Agency was left unable to discharge its responsibilities under the safeguards agreement. She rejected Iran's claims that it has not allowed IAEA inspections out of concerns for the safety of its inspectors, pointing out that IAEA inspectors have managed to carry out inspections at Ukraine’s nuclear facilities throughout the war between Russian Federation and Ukraine.
She, as well as others, drew attention to a resolution adopted yesterday by the Agency’s Board of Governors that Iran's non-compliance with its safeguards obligations is a matter for the Council's consideration. Against that background, several delegates reaffirmed the mandate of the 1737 Committee.
Support for 1737 Committee Mandate, amid Calls to Surmount Divisions to Appoint Chair, Expert Panel
That body must be equipped with the necessary tools to discharge its mandate, Greece’s delegate stressed, adding: “A functioning Panel of Experts is particularly important.” She also stressed the importance of freedom of navigation through international waterways such as the Hormuz Strait and Bab al-Mandab.
The representative of Panama said that the political circumstances preventing the appointment of chairs of subsidiary bodies have limited the functioning of their Committees. This has “implications that go beyond procedural matters” because it affects those bodies’ ability to fulfill their mandates.
Reiterating that Iran must never be allowed to acquire or develop a nuclear weapon, Denmark’s delegate expressed concern that the mandate of the Panel of Experts is due to expire later this month. Without a Committee Chair and effective monitoring mechanisms, the implementation of the sanctions regime is further weakened.
The representative of Latvia stressed that only unhindered access for IAEA inspectors to all relevant sites, coupled with a return to meaningful negotiations, could provide a credible basis for a diplomatic process leading to the lifting of existing sanctions on Iran.
Speakers from beyond Europe also supported the Council’s consideration of Iran’s nuclear programme. Welcoming the holding of today’s meeting, the representative of Bahrain said that his country and others in the region have been directly subjected to Iran’s ballistic missiles and drones. “Taken together, these developments demonstrate that compliance is not merely a technical or procedural matter; it is directly linked to international peace and security,” he said.
Colombia: Resolution 1737 (2006) Is International Law
For Colombia, that country’s newly appointed delegate said, “there is no doubt that the sanctions regime is applicable”. As a member of the IAEA's Board of Governors, Colombia has also supported the decision taken this week to refer Iran’s noncompliance to the Security Council. The re-establishment of the 1737 Committee and its Panel of Experts is not a political matter but a legal one for his country. Council resolution 1737 (2006) is part of public international law — Iran signed a binding commitment and it should not be re-interpreted in any way, he underscored.
However, the representative of the Russian Federation rejected both the legitimacy of the meeting and claims that sanctions on Iran had been reimposed. He argued that resolution 2231 (2015) expired on 18 October 2025 and the Council never decided to reactivate previous sanctions or re-establish the 1737 Committee. “Russia will not permit the Security Council to take any decisions that legitimize assertions about a snapback that supposedly took place,” he stressed, opposing efforts to revive the Committee. Criticizing the United States and Israel for their actions towards Iran, he emphasized that Moscow “categorically repudiates attempts to manipulate the authority of the Security Council to settle political scores with Tehran”.
Expressing regret over the outcome of the procedural vote, China’s representative said that the United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the Plan of Action, its use of force against Iran during the negotiation process, and its pursuit of a policy of maximum pressure against Tehran are “the primary causes of the current complex and intractable situation in the Middle East and the Iranian nuclear issue”. The parties concerned “should not confuse cause and effect,” he said, adding that Iran, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), has the legitimate right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Sanctions Ripple Beyond Region, Speakers Warn, Call for Balance
The differences between Council members regarding the snapback mechanism must be considered in “a spirit of dialogue and responsibility”, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s delegate counselled. He highlighted “the potential knock-on effects beyond the region”, including on maritime security, energy supplies and international economic stability.
“Given the necessary space, diplomacy can still deliver results in settling outstanding issues peacefully,” Pakistan’s representative added. His country has engaged in constructive diplomacy aimed at supporting de-escalation, a ceasefire and broader regional stability. “We consistently sought to encourage dialogue, facilitate the exchange of messages, and help create space and conditions conducive to meaningful negotiations,” he said.
Somalia’s delegate called for “a measured, balanced and principled approach” to address the concerns of all parties while preserving space for diplomacy. The IAEA must be allowed to carry out its mandate impartially and effectively. He highlighted the need for a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. All States in the region — without exception — must join the NPT, he added.
“When non-proliferation falters, human security pays the toll everywhere,” the representative of Liberia said. The African Union has consistently warned that instability in the Middle East can generate severe global repercussions. Strategic miscalculations thousands of miles away do not remain confined to the region; rather, they reach “the doorstep of a market woman in Monrovia as an unaffordable transport fare and a more expensive bag of rice”. He cautioned that “diplomacy without rigorous verification is not reassurance; it is a promise written in disappearing ink”.