Statement by Deputy Permanent Representative Anna Evstigneeva at a UNGA Meeting on the Use of the Veto with Regard to the Draft UNSC Resolution on the Panel of Experts of the 1737 Committee
Mr. President,
The Russian Federation voted against the US-sponsored draft UN Security Council resolution seeking to extend the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the illegitimate Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737.
This decision of ours was motivated by our country’s principled and consistent position regarding claims about the alleged reinstatement of Security Council resolutions which expired in 2015 upon the adoption of resolution 2231. We have repeatedly conveyed our position on this matter to a broad range of Member States, including here in the General Assembly. Nevertheless, I believe it would be useful to recall the chronology of the key developments surrounding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear program, as well as the reasons why the notification submitted by its European participants purporting to trigger the “snapback” mechanism was legally and procedurally null and void.
The crisis surrounding the implementation of the JCPOA had a well-known and obvious starting point – that is, the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from it in 2018. Despite this destructive move by Washington, Tehran exercised restraint at the time and for more than a year continued to comply with its commitments under the “nuclear deal”. This good-faith approach, however, was not reciprocated by the E3 – the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Not only did these countries fail to ensure tangible economic benefits for Iran from the lifting of the sanctions that had been in force prior to 2015, but they also directly violated the provisions of Security Council resolution 2231 by introducing unilateral coercive measures (UCM) in 2023 to “replace” the expired UNSC restrictions.
International law is unequivocal when it comes to such conduct. A party that fails to comply with its obligations under a treaty or agreement forfeits its right to invoke the mechanisms provided for therein. This understanding is reflected in the legal clean hands doctrine, in the principle of pacta sunt servanda, and in the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice.
Moreover, the JCPOA, which formed an integral part of Security Council resolution 2231, clearly set out a procedure for resolving any disagreements concerning its implementation. Such disagreements were to be thoroughly considered within the framework of the Dispute Resolution Mechanism (DRM) in Vienna. Paragraphs 36 and 37 of the JCPOA established a clear sequence of steps for this process. A matter could be referred to the UN Security Council only after a dispute had been considered at all stages envisaged under the DRM and no resolution had been achieved. In reality, however, contrary to the assertions of our European colleagues, the Mechanism was not merely unexhausted – it was never even triggered.
Thus, the appeal submitted to the UN Security Council by the United Kingdom, France and Germany on August 28, 2025, did not trigger the “snapback” mechanism – they simply had no legal right to do so. This reality could not be altered by any subsequent erroneous and unlawful steps, including the Republic of Korea’s introduction in September 2025 of a draft UNSC resolution in connection with the purported “snapback”, nor by the biased assessments of the UN Secretariat. The bottom line is that the Security Council resolutions concerning Iran, including resolutions 1737 and 1929, were not reinstated, while resolution 2231 expired, as stipulated therein, on 18 October 2025. On that same day, the Security Council concluded its consideration of the Iranian nuclear issue, and the item “Non-proliferation” was removed from the agenda.
For these reasons, the US-drafted resolution, which was considered by the Security Council on 17 September, simply lacked both a legal basis and a subject matter. The proposal to extend the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the 1737 Committee was patently absurd, given that both the Panel and the Committee ceased to exist in 2015 and the Council had taken no decisions to re-establish them. We therefore had no alternative but to vote against the draft.
The United States was perfectly well aware that its draft resolution was a priori unacceptable to Russia and China. Moreover, from the very outset of the negotiations on the document, our delegations consistently made this clear to our American colleagues. Nevertheless, Washington chose to continue “raising the stakes” only to put the draft to a vote.
Mr. President,
Today, we will undoubtedly hear yet another round of assertions made by certain Western countries that Russia and China – I quote them – are “shielding” Iran and “obstructing” the work of the Security Council. Such rhetoric cannot be taken seriously. It is clearly prompted by one thing alone: their inability to offer any meaningful response to the legal arguments put forward by us and our like-minded partners in rebuttal of the fabrications surrounding the purported “snapback”. Against this backdrop, some colleagues apparently cannot think of anything better than responding to a procedural issue with politicized accusations.
We would like to emphasize that the normal functioning of the Security Council is being obstructed solely by the attempts of some of its members to reinstate resolutions that ceased to have effect long ago. As the events of the past year have demonstrated, the sole purpose of such fabrications is to exert extensive pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran in major international fora, including the United Nations and the IAEA. To this end, those Security Council members acting in bad faith are prepared to sacrifice the effectiveness of the Council’s work across a wide range of files, including within its legitimate subsidiary bodies.
Regrettably, the statements by our Western colleagues about their concern for maintaining the global non-proliferation regime are nothing more than empty words. Their true attitude towards this issue became apparent when the United States and Israel twice – in the midst of the negotiating process – launched strikes against Iran’s peaceful nuclear infrastructure under IAEA safeguards, thereby hindering the Agency’s verification activities at those facilities. The United Kingdom, France and Germany – despite being so vociferous about their alleged commitment to a diplomatic settlement of the situation surrounding Iran’s nuclear program – effectively supported those actions.
Now, the aforementioned States even try to pretend that nothing happened, omitting any reference to these events from their statements. Instead, they continue to repeat, like a mantra, their familiar litany of grievances against Tehran, abusing Security Council procedures in pursuit of their parochial political interests. Such actions not only fuel the spiraling escalation, but also simply undermine the prospects for reaching a negotiated solution. The Russian Federation will continue to oppose this unlawful and reckless course in all relevant fora, including the UN Security Council.
Mr. President,
There is and can be no alternative to a political and diplomatic settlement in the Middle East. Only negotiations on an equal footing, with due regard to the interests of all parties as well as Iran’s legitimate rights, can both dispel any suspicions regarding the Iranian nuclear program and help resolve the current deplorable situation in the Persian Gulf region. We are grateful to the countries of the region for their tireless efforts in this regard. We strongly urge our Western colleagues to stop “adding fuel to the fire” and instead engage in creating conditions conducive to such work.
Thank you.
