Report : Tazeen Akhtar | Pictures : Raja Ghulam Farid
Ambassador Dr Reza Amiri Moghaddam, in his address, shared, The long and complex negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the P5+1 countries ultimately led in 2015 to the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)” and the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which provided for the lifting of all sanctions.
“Two years later, in clear violation of international obligations, the then-President of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump, unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA. Despite this unlawful action, Iran continued to honor its commitments in good faith and in full respect of international law. Both the United States and, subsequently, the European Troika failed to uphold their responsibilities under the JCPOA and international law.”
H.E said, The JCPOA contains a specific dispute resolution mechanism designed to address instances of non-compliance. The “snapback” mechanism constitutes one of its key legal enforcement provisions, enabling parties—after exhausting the prescribed dispute resolution process—to revert to the status prior to the implementation of their commitments in cases of proven violation. In simple terms, should one side fail to comply with its obligations, the Western parties may reimpose previously lifted sanctions, while Iran may resume its unrestricted nuclear activities.
However, Ambassador noted, any claim of a “significant violation” must first be examined and addressed through the JCPOA’s dispute settlement procedures. Only once this process is fully completed may the matter be referred to the Security Council. Given that the JCPOA is an integral part of Resolution 2231, any direct referral to the Security Council without completing this mechanism is legally impermissible.
“In view of the violations committed by the other parties—including the unjustified U.S. withdrawal and the failure of the European countries to fulfill their obligations—Iran duly completed the dispute resolution process and subsequently undertook remedial measures. Having already activated the mechanism, Iran considers any attempt by the three European countries to initiate a separate or parallel process to be legally invalid, Ambassador continued.
Dr. Moghaddam said, A fundamental legal principle stipulates that a case under active consideration cannot be pursued simultaneously in multiple fora. Similarly, any attempt to refer the matter directly to the Security Council without completing the established procedures lacks legal basis.
“Following the United States’ withdrawal in 2018 and its reimposition of unilateral sanctions, Iran continued for an entire year to fully implement its JCPOA commitments while engaging diplomatically to mitigate the consequences of that withdrawal. Just two days after the U.S. announcement, Iran formally initiated the JCPOA’s dispute settlement process.”
Ambassador further shared, One year later, after the completion of that process and in light of the European parties’ persistent failure to deliver on their commitments, Iran began graduatal remedial steps in strict accordance under Articles 26 and 36 of the JCPOA. These measures were designed to restore balance within the agreement and encourage the United States to return to full compliance.
“Iran’s remedial actions, being fully consistent with its rights under the JCPOA, cannot and should not serve as grounds for countermeasures by the European parties or for reactivation of the dispute settlement or snapback mechanisms. These steps represent the lawful exercise of Iran’s treaty rights, not a violation thereof, H.E mentioned.
Dr Moghaddam added, It is important to note that the European Troika, in full political alignment with the United States, has purported to activate the dispute settlement and snapback mechanisms and to refer the matter to the Security Council—despite its own substantial non-performance. Following the U.S. withdrawal, neither the European Union nor the European Troika implemented their JCPOA obligations; rather, by maintaining and even expanding sanctions, they effectively renounced their commitments.
“Given these clear breaches, the European parties are not legally entitled to invoke the dispute settlement or snapback provisions. Under well-established principles of international law, a party that has itself failed to comply with a treaty cannot invoke the rights and remedies provided under that same treaty.”
Ambassador Iran informed the participants , When the European Troika submitted its snapback notification to the Security Council, no consensus was reached among Council members regarding its validity. Both Russia and China, citing legal, procedural, and political grounds, deemed the European notification null and void.
“As a result, the \snapback process itself lacks legal validity, and any measures inconsistent with Resolution 2231 cannot give rise to binding international obligations for UN member states. Consequently, Russia and China have not recognized the legitimacy of this notification, H.E said.
“This is not without precedent. In 2020, the United States also attempted to trigger the snapback mechanism, but the then-President of the Security Council declared that there was no consensus among members and declined to initiate the process. The absence of consensus was evident again in the Council’s two recent votes—on 19 September, concerning the continuation of sanctions relief, and on 26 September, regarding a six-month extension of Resolution 2231’s expiry.”
Dr Moghaddam said, Furthermore, fundamental changes in circumstances have rendered earlier Security Council resolutions concerning Iran’s nuclear program obsolete. In particular, as a result of acts of military aggression by the Israeli regime and the United States, many of the facilities and activities referenced in prior resolutions are no longer relevant. Consequently, the invocation of those resolutions today is legally and politically unfounded. Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, conducted under IAEA safeguards, has become a target of military attacks; therefore, any attempt to revive terminated resolutions would effectively reward the aggressor and penalize the victim.
“Given these considerations, it is essential that Resolution 2231 be concluded on schedule. The European Troika’s attempted activation of the snapback mechanism suffers from serious legal, procedural, and political flaws, rendering the entire process null and without effect. Any subsequent steps taken in the Security Council cannot create new legal obligations for Iran or other UN member states. This position is fully supported by the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. Accordingly, UN Security Council Resolution 2231 remains validand, in accordance with the timelines stipulated in both the JCPOA and the resolution itself,expired on 28 October 2025.”
Finally, Ambassador said, Upon its expiration, the rights recognized in Resolution 2231—such as Iran’s right to continue and develop indigenous uranium enrichment, to engage in international scientific and technical cooperation in the nuclear field, and to advance nuclear research and development—shall remain intact. The Islamic Republic of Iran does not recognize any attempt to reinstate the restrictive measures contained in prior, rescinded resolutions.
2- Iran has a role in mediation btw AFPAK ?
