In a dramatic turn at the United Nations, the Security Council on September 26, 2025, voted down a resolution put forth by Russia and China that would have delayed reimposing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. The measure, designed to give diplomacy more time, failed by a vote of 4 in favor, 9 against, and 2 abstentions, according to the Associated Press and multiple international outlets. The defeat paves the way for a sweeping series of UN sanctions to snap back into effect on September 27, at 1 AM GMT, escalating tensions between Iran and the West and marking a pivotal moment in the long-running saga of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The rejected resolution was the last-ditch effort by Iran’s closest allies on the 15-member council to halt the automatic reimposition of sanctions—known as the “snapback” mechanism—outlined in the 2015 nuclear deal, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The sanctions, now set to return, will freeze Iranian assets abroad, halt arms and missile deals with Tehran, penalize any development of Iran’s ballistic missile program, and restore prohibitions against uranium enrichment and nuclear trade. The move is widely expected to further squeeze Iran’s already battered economy and raise the stakes for regional security.
China, Russia, Pakistan, and Algeria were the four countries supporting the resolution, advocating for more time to negotiate with the so-called E3—Britain, France, and Germany—and the United States. However, the E3, backed by the US, argued that Iran had failed to meet its commitments under the 2015 nuclear pact and that weeks of high-level negotiations had yielded no tangible progress. As reported by VOVWORLD, the E3 insisted that “Iran has failed to meet its 2015 nuclear pact commitments and that weeks of negotiations have produced no concrete results.”
Iranian leaders were quick to denounce the Security Council’s decision. President Masoud Pezeshkian, speaking on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, called the move “unfair, unjust and illegal.” He emphasized that, despite previous threats, Iran does not intend to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty—a path North Korea took in 2003 before building atomic weapons. Pezeshkian painted a picture of failed diplomacy, saying, “Every time we spoke with the Europeans, we’ve reached conclusions and agreements, but then at the end of the day the American side did not accept.” He also lamented that, during a key meeting, “the Americans never showed up. What are we supposed to do?”
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi echoed the frustration, declaring, “The US has betrayed diplomacy, but it is the E3 which have buried it.” He accused both the US and European powers of consistently misrepresenting Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, arguing that the current crisis “did not come about overnight.” According to the Associated Press, Araghchi maintained that Iran had tried to salvage the deal through weeks of frantic talks, but to no avail.
On the other side, the E3 triggered the snapback mechanism in late August after formally accusing Tehran of failing to comply with the JCPOA. In a statement cited by multiple reports, the E3 asserted, “Since 2019 and as of today, Iran has increasingly and deliberately ceased performing its JCPOA commitments. This includes the accumulation of a high enriched uranium stockpile which lacks any credible civilian justification.” European diplomats, speaking to the Associated Press, confirmed that negotiations “did not produce any new developments, any new results.”
The United States, which unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 under President Donald Trump, has remained a key player behind the scenes. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rejected direct talks with the US just days before the Security Council vote, asserting that Iran would not “surrender to pressure” regarding uranium enrichment. Khamenei accused the US of breaking “promises in everything,” insisting that “one cannot negotiate with this side, cannot sit down with confidence and trust to make agreements.”
The sanctions’ scope is sweeping. As detailed in UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the 2015 nuclear deal, the snapback provisions freeze Iranian assets abroad, restore arms and missile embargoes, outlaw ballistic missile testing, and ban nuclear trade with Iran. They also reinstate prohibitions on uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing—key elements in weapons development. The aim, according to Western diplomats, is to pressure Iran back to the negotiating table and curb its nuclear capabilities.
Yet the Iranian side has warned that the reimposition of sanctions could have severe consequences for international nuclear oversight. Earlier this month, the UN nuclear watchdog (the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA) and Iran signed an agreement—mediated by Egypt—to resume cooperation and inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities. However, Iran has threatened to terminate that agreement and cut off all cooperation with the IAEA if UN sanctions are reimposed. A diplomat close to the IAEA confirmed on Friday that inspectors are currently in Iran, inspecting a second undamaged nuclear site, and will not leave the country ahead of the sanctions’ return. European officials, however, have stated that this action alone is not enough to halt the sanctions from coming into place.
Iran’s nuclear program remains a subject of deep suspicion. Of all the nations without nuclear weapons, Iran is the only one enriching uranium up to 60% purity—a technical step away from weapons-grade material. The IAEA has reported that Iran possesses more than 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, far beyond what is needed for civilian purposes. The Europeans have said they would consider extending the deadline if Iran resumes direct negotiations with the US, allows full access to UN inspectors, and accounts for its uranium stockpile. But as things stand, the diplomatic window has closed.
According to Dmitry Polyanskiy, Deputy Russian Ambassador to the UN, “We had hoped that European colleagues and the US would think twice, and they would opt for the path of diplomacy and dialogue instead of their clumsy blackmail, which merely results in escalation of the situation in the region.”
As the sanctions come into force, the world is left watching for Iran’s next moves. Will Tehran escalate its nuclear activities, risking further isolation and possible military strikes, or will it seek a negotiated solution to ease the economic and political pressure? For now, the diplomatic stalemate persists, and the stakes for the region—and beyond—have rarely been higher.
