Statement by Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Before the UNSC On“Implementation of Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)”

.

Mr. President,

Let me begin by expressing our appreciation to Algeria, China, Pakistan, and the Russian Federation for voting 'yes' to this draft resolution in support of diplomacy, the rule of law, and justice.

I should thank China and Russia for tabling this resolution and for all the efforts they made throughout the process of informal negotiations with other parties concerned.

We also thank Guyana and the Republic of Korea for their decision not to vote against this draft resolution.

They have all chosen the right side of history since this draft resolution reflected a genuine endeavor to keep the door for diplomacy and dialogue open and to avoid confrontation and contest.

Mr. President, Distinguished Colleagues,

Iran has been a long-standing party to the 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 with all transparency and readiness to address every question in good faith.

Twelve years ago, the P5+1 and Iran engaged, with Foreign Ministers meeting at the United Nations and agreeing to seek a solution over the nuclear program.

After two years of serious negotiations, the JCPOA was concluded— a landmark achievement in multilateral diplomacy, unanimously endorsed by Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015). Iran fully implemented the deal, as confirmed by the IAEA in 15 consecutive reports. No country’s nuclear program 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 and international law, and began bullying other governments to follow suit. It presented no reason, no justification.

Despite this, Iran remained fully compliant, predicated on European promises that their compensatory measures would protect the fundamental bargain of the accord: for Iran to agree to voluntary restrictions in exchange for sanctions lifting and other tangible economic dividends for the Iranian people. After more than a year of patience, and after the E3 made clear that it either would not or could not honor 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. More importantly, they were designed to re-establish the fundamental premise of the 2015 accord.

Mr. President,

Today’s situation is the direct consequence of the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and the E3/EU failure to take any effective action to uphold their commitments.

The U.S has betrayed diplomacy, but it is the E3 which have buried it.

This sordid mess did not come about overnight. Both the E3 and the U.S. have consistently misrepresented Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.

The E3 and the U.S. deepened this failure by repeatedly misrepresenting Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, parroting the Israeli regime’s baseless allegations. These claims are false. Iran has not violated the JCPOA, the NPT, or its Safeguards Agreement.

In doing so, they have been parroting the Israeli regime’s baseless allegations. This is doubly heinous as the Israeli regime, as the occupying genocidal regime that is habitually attacking other countries, 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 as well as our defense doctrine. This principled position has been reaffirmed by Iran's supreme leader in his recent address.

And 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, Iran responded in good faith when President Trump called for dialogue upon his return to the White House earlier this year.

Five rounds of talks were held. On the eve of the sixth session, Israel — with U.S. backing — attacked IAEA-monitored nuclear facilities in my country. The criminal Israeli regime murdered Iranian nuclear scientists along with their families in cold blood; in one case, killing an academic along with over a dozen relatives, including women and children. This terrorism was not called out by the E3 or condemned by the IAEA. Instead, we all saw how officials like the Chancellor of Germany openly hailed Israel for doing Europe’s “dirty work”.

In other words, Iran’s pursuit of diplomacy was met with aggression.

Once again, Washington betrayed diplomacy while the E3 buried it.

Instead of mobilizing to jumpstart dialogue, the E3 chose confrontation by initiating the so-called snapback mechanism. Iran, in contrast, chose cooperation.

On 9 September, in Cairo, I signed a memorandum with the IAEA Director General. 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. The E3 and the United States acted in bad faith, claiming to support diplomacy while in effect blocking it. Regrettably, E3 chose to follow Washington’s whims rather than exercising their independent sovereign discretion. The United States’ persistent negation of all initiatives to keep the widow for diplomacy open, proved once again that negotiations with the United States lead to nowhere other than ‘dead-end’, as also pronounced by Iran’s supreme leader.

Mr. President,

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 U.S. 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 jumpstart 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.

Mr. President,

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 2025.

That joint position made clear that the E3’s 28 August communication to the Council President cannot, under any circumstances, be regarded as a valid notification under OP 11 of resolution 2231.

Iran has no obligations under it, because:

- The E3 breached their obligations under the JCPOA and Resolution 2231, thereby losing any right to claim “significant non-performance.” Their invocation of the so-called snap-back mechanism is simply a stark abuse of process.

- The draft resolution voted on 19 September did not meet the requirements of Resolution 2231 and cannot restore terminated sanctions that have already ended. Likewise, the Resolution put forward by the Republic of South Korea, on which the Council President abstained, carries no legitimacy.

- Attempts by Germany, France, the UK, and the U.S. to revive terminated sanctions are therefore null and void.

- Resolution 2231 must expire based on the time frame agreed upon. All nuclear-related restrictions under Resolution 2231 will end permanently on 18 October 2025. 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 avoid any attempt to revive sanctions-related mechanisms within the Secretariat.

Any attempt to restore terminated sanctions must be rejected. No resources should support this illegal mechanism.

Those who pursue it will bear full responsibility for damaging the UN’s credibility and integrity, as well as for any harm and humanitarian consequences inflicted on the people of Iran.

Mr. President,

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 program, and blocking diplomacy, they have actively and intently paved the way for a dangerous escalation.

Dear Colleagues,

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 of the Iranian people in the promises of the West, and 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 U.S. to correct course and take meaningful action to build confidence and trust.

In the meantime, we must adhere to what international law and the UN Charter make abundantly clear: obligations cannot arise from invalid procedures or lack of consensus within the Security Council.

I thank you.