The text, deposited by the President of the Council – the Republic of Korea – received only four votes in favor of Russia, China, Algeria and Pakistan, Do not secure the nine required for adoption.
Denmark, France, Greece, Panama, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Somalia, the United Kingdom and the United States voted against. The Guyana and the Republic of Korea abstained.
If it had been adopted, the resolution would have ended the sanctions of the UN imposed on Iran before 2015 Complete full action plan (or JCPOA), thus preserving the repair of the sanctions provided in Tehran under the agreement.
Terms of “snapback”
Resolution 2231, which approved JCPOA in July 2015, established the process by which the UN sanctions would be lifted, while establishing a mechanism to reimpose them in the event of “significant non-performance” by one of its participants-China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union (EU) and Iran.
Under paragraph 11, if one of the signatories informs the council of a major violation, the chairman of the council must, within 30 days, put a draft resolution to the vote for the repair of the sanctions.
If the project is not adopted, previous UN sanctions are automatically replicated, which means that Unless the council votes explicitly to maintain the sanctions in place, previous UN sanctions are automatically restored.
The members of the Security Council vote on the draft resolution.
Heated discussions
At the start of Friday’s meeting, Russia raised an order point, rejecting European pretension to trigger the Snapback mechanism.
Russian ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said there were no legal, political or procedural reasons to authorize the “snapback” mechanism or vote on the draft resolution, and accused France, Germany and the United Kingdom of acting outside the resolution 2231 and the JCPOA.
He said the three had not followed the dispute settlement mechanism and rather imposed unilateral sanctions against Iran, which he described as “illegal”.
“The attempts on the part of European countries to present the situation as if they had the right to activate the punitive provisions of previous resolutions, while they did not fulfill their own obligations … cannot hold water,” said ambassador Nebenzia.
China has also urged caution.
The FU Cong ambassador said “major differences” existed between the members of the Snapback council and warns that a precipitated vote could “exacerbate the confrontation of the state”, complicating efforts to solve the problem diplomatically.
The British ambassador Barbara Woodward A, declaring that the decision of the E3 (the European participants of the JCPOA) to invoke Snapback was “entirely legal, justified, wide and coherent with the requirements of resolution 2231”.
She cited the notification of August 28, 2025 submitted by France, Germany and the United Kingdom: “All that is necessary to trigger Snapback is … A notification by a participating state of the JCPOA of a problem which, according to him, constitutes a significant non-performance of the commitments under the JCPOA”, she declared.
France spoke before the vote, citing the growing nuclear program of Iran and its reduced cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (Aiea).
Ambassador Jérôme Bonnafont said that Iran had accumulated far highest enriched uranium stocks than the limit set by the agreement and the limited access of the IAEA to key installations.
He called the Snapback mechanism necessary to preserve international peace and security, and the integrity of the global non-proliferation regime.
Publicado anteriormente en Almouwatin.
