At the United Nations headquarters in New York on December 23, 2025, the Security Council chamber was thick with tension as world powers clashed over the future of Iran’s nuclear program and the legitimacy of sanctions that have defined a decade of diplomatic wrangling. The meeting, called to discuss the reinstatement of pre-JCPOA UN sanctions against Iran, quickly turned into a showcase of deepening global divisions, with Western states and Iran’s allies trading accusations and warnings about the consequences of failed diplomacy.
Iran’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN, Amir Saeid Iravani, opened the session with a forceful rejection of the meeting’s very premise. “Security Council resolution 2231 contains a clear, deliberate, and self-executing termination clause. This resolution expired on October 18, 2025. As of that date, it ceased to have any legal effect or operative mandate. Accordingly, the Security Council’s role under resolution 2231 came to a definitive end,” Iravani declared, according to Mehr News. He insisted there was “no mandate” for the Secretary-General to submit a report, “no mandate” for the council to discuss it, and “no legal basis whatsoever” to convene the meeting under the “Non-proliferation” agenda.
Resolution 2231, the backbone of the 2015 nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), had set a firm expiration for previous sanctions and outlined a path for Iran’s peaceful nuclear development. Yet, earlier in 2025, the so-called European troika—Germany, the UK, and France—had triggered the snapback mechanism, seeking to restore sanctions on Iran, a move that Tehran and its allies have called both illegal and provocative.
During the session, Western states, led by the US and Europe, placed the blame squarely on Iran, demanding that it allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors access to its nuclear sites. However, as Mehr News reported, they offered no assurances that the US and Israel would not attack again once the locations of Iran’s enriched uranium were revealed. The Western bloc’s insistence on compliance was met with skepticism from many in the chamber, especially as these calls came just months after the US and Israel had launched attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025—actions widely condemned as violations of the UN Charter and international law.
Iravani did not mince words about the origins of the current crisis. He attributed the breakdown in trust to the US’s unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA, ongoing non-compliance by France, Germany, and the UK, and what he described as “military aggression” by the US and Israel against Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities. According to PressTV, Israel’s June 13 attack killed at least 1,064 people and targeted civilian infrastructure, and the US joined the conflict more than a week later, striking three Iranian nuclear sites. Iran responded with retaliatory operations, managing to halt the aggression by June 24.
“The war of aggression launched by the United States and Israel—including deliberate attacks on facilities under IAEA safeguards—constitutes a blatant violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the peremptory norm prohibiting the use of force, and represents a direct assault on the international non-proliferation regime,” Iravani told the Council. He accused the West of a “blatant double standard,” arguing that Iran is unfairly punished while attackers “enjoy complete impunity.”
Despite years of unlawful sanctions, sabotage, assassinations, and armed attacks, Iravani emphasized that Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful and subject to extensive verification. He thanked Russia, China, Algeria, Pakistan, and other council members for their “principled and consistent support” of the JCPOA, contrasting their approach with what he called the West’s “escalation over diplomacy.”
Following Iravani’s remarks, US Mission counselor Morgan Ortagus responded that the United States was prepared for direct negotiations but maintained that Iran does not possess the right to enrich uranium on its own soil. Ortagus stated, “The U.S. remained willing to engage in formal discussions with Iran, provided Tehran was ready for a direct and meaningful dialogue.” However, she reiterated the longstanding US demand that Iran cease all enrichment activities—a non-starter for Tehran for decades. Ortagus accused Iran of pursuing confrontation, saying, “Iran must abandon this confrontational path and accept Trump's diplomatic overture,” though she did not address the US’s own military actions that had killed over 1,100 Iranians earlier in the year.
France’s deputy UN ambassador, Jay Dharmadhikari, defended Europe’s decision to trigger the snapback, claiming that Iran had been in “increasingly flagrant violation” of the JCPOA’s peaceful-use limitations since 2019. Yet, as Mehr News highlighted, he omitted the fact that Iran only began scaling back its JCPOA commitments after the US withdrew from the deal and Europe failed to mitigate the impact of renewed US sanctions. Europe itself imposed further sanctions in 2022 and subsequent years, deepening the diplomatic rift.
China’s deputy permanent representative to the UN, Sun Lei, offered a contrasting perspective, urging all parties to “attach importance to Iran's sincerity and positive efforts, instead of engaging in one-sided pressure and disruptive actions.” Sun called on the United States to “earnestly assume its responsibilities, demonstrate political sincerity, make a clear commitment not to use force against Iran, and proactively resume negotiations.” He also criticized the European troika for engaging in “microphone diplomacy” rather than playing a constructive role in calming tensions.
Russia’s envoy, Vassily Nebenzia, condemned the session itself as a “transparent ploy” to revive anti-Iranian sanctions and the snapback mechanism, warning that such actions only deepen rifts within the Security Council. He criticized Slovenia’s presidency of the Council for allowing what he called an unjustified and destabilizing session, and reaffirmed that Russia “will not take instructions from any government or country outside the United Nations.” Nebenzia underscored that the International Atomic Energy Agency has never cited military objectives in Iran’s nuclear program, insisting that the US and Israel’s attacks were blatant violations of international law.
Pakistan’s Acting Permanent Representative, Usman Jadoon, called for a return to diplomacy and dialogue, warning that “sanctions directly hurt ordinary people the most,” damaging trade, economic development, and regional connectivity. Jadoon urged all parties to preserve the JCPOA framework, allowing diplomacy the time and space to succeed, and expressed concern over the widening divisions within the Council that threaten peaceful resolution.
The session ultimately laid bare the deep divisions within the Security Council and the international community at large. While Western powers pressed for renewed sanctions and stricter controls, Iran and its allies insisted that the path forward must be built on mutual respect, recognition of legal rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and an end to what they see as coercion and double standards. As Iravani concluded, the core principles of the JCPOA—peaceful nuclear assurances in exchange for recognition of Iran’s rights—remain valid and could form the basis of a new agreement, if only the West would abandon its zero-enrichment policy.
With the legal basis for the current sanctions in question and the scars of recent military conflict still fresh, the future of Iran’s nuclear diplomacy—and the region’s stability—hangs in the balance, awaiting a breakthrough that seems as elusive as ever.
