Delivering a statement during a UN Security Council session in New York on Tuesday, Saeed Iravani objected to the convening of the meeting under the agenda item of non-proliferation, describing it as a clear violation of the Council’s mandate and procedures.

He underscored that all nuclear-related provisions of Resolution 2231 terminated on 18 October 2025, leaving no legal grounds for continued discussions or reporting.

The full text of his statement is as follows:

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

Mr. President,

At the outset, I wish to state clearly Iran’s position regarding the convening of this meeting. We associate ourselves with the positions of our Russian and Chinese colleagues and firmly object to the convening of this meeting.

Security Council resolution 2231 contains a clear, deliberate, and self-executing termination clause. This resolution expired on 18 October 2025. As of that date, it ceased to have any legal effect or operative mandate. Accordingly, the Security Council’s role under resolution 2231 came to a definitive end. There is therefore no mandate for the Secretary-General to submit any report, no mandate for the Council to hold discussions on it, and no legal basis whatsoever to convene a meeting under the agenda item “Non-proliferation” in this context.

Any attempt to convene such a meeting constitutes a clear violation of the Council’s rules of procedure. Likewise, any claim of the “continued operation” or “implementation” of resolution 2231—whether by invoking Note 44 of the President of the Council (S/2016/44) or by vague references to so-called “established practice”—is legally unfounded and misleading, and amounts to a clear abuse of this Council’s authority and processes.

Mr. President,

I wish to express Iran’s appreciation to China and the Russian Federation for their principled position and their faithful commitment to the JCPOA throughout its implementation. We also thank Algeria, Pakistan, and other Council members who have taken principled and independent positions.

What we are witnessing is not a legitimate disagreement over interpretation, but a calculated distortion of Resolution 2231, the deliberate dissemination of disinformation regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, and a cynical attempt to abuse this Council for their narrow political interests.

Against this backdrop, I wish to make the following points:

First, the root causes of the current situation are clear and did not emerge overnight or in isolation. They lie in the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA in 2018, the sustained and deliberate non-compliance of the three European Countries (E3) with their commitments, and the subsequent military aggression by the United States and the Israeli regime against Iran’s peaceful, safeguarded nuclear facilities. The war of aggression launched by the United States and Israel—including deliberate attacks on facilities under IAEA safeguards—constitutes a blatant violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the peremptory norm prohibiting the use of force, and represents a direct assault on the international non-proliferation regime.

This situation is further aggravated by the explicit and public admission of the President of the United States—a permanent member of the Security Council and a depositary of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons—that Washington led, directed, and coordinated this war of aggression. Any attempt to justify these unlawful acts through a distorted interpretation of Article 51 of the Charter or by invoking a fabricated claim of ‘imminent threat’ is legally unfounded, misleading, and constitutes one of the most dangerous abuses of international law in recent history. Article 51 of the Charter permits self-defense only in response to an actual armed attack, not speculative or hypothetical threats.

Equally disturbing is the silence—and in certain instances, the implicit endorsement—of the three European countries in response to these acts of aggression. They have no credibility whatsoever to invoke non-proliferation norms or to claim concern for the integrity of the non-proliferation regime.

Second, Iran has been a faithful and responsible party to the NPT since 1970. Iran has consistently rejected weapons of mass destruction, on legal, moral, and doctrinal grounds, a position reaffirmed constantly at the highest levels. Despite unlawful sanctions, sabotage, assassinations of its nuclear scientists, and armed attacks, Iran has never diverted its nuclear program to military purposes. Iran’s program remains exclusively peaceful and subject to the most extensive verification regime applied to any non-nuclear-weapon State. Yet the roles have been deliberately reversed: the victim is treated as the perpetrator, Iran is punished, and those who attack IAEA-safeguarded nuclear facilities enjoy complete impunity. This blatant double standard gravely undermines the integrity, credibility, and authority of the global non-proliferation regime.

Despite these circumstances and grave violations, Iran acted in good faith and continued to cooperate with the IAEA. On 9 September in Cairo, Iran’s Foreign Minister signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the IAEA Director General—an initiative welcomed by the Agency and many States—as a constructive first step. Additional proposals were later presented here, in New York, by Iran’s Foreign Minister. All were ignored. France and the United Kingdom chose escalation over diplomacy, acting in alignment with Washington's instructions while blocking genuine diplomatic efforts, including the responsible initiative put forward by China and Russia. Furthermore, they acted in bad faith by ignoring Iran’s constructive cooperation with the IAEA, deliberately omitting key facts, and tabling another politically motivated resolution at the IAEA Board of Governors in November 2025, while pressuring members to support it. This was done to manufacture a crisis rather than resolve one, and it effectively ended both diplomacy and the Cairo agreement.

Third, regarding claims that the so-called “snapback” or “reinstatement” of terminated sanctions resolutions has been triggered, Iran’s position is clear, consistent, and firmly on the record, including in its official communications to the Secretary-General and the President of the Council. This position has also been explicitly shared by other members, including China and Russia.

The E3 have been in sustained and publicly acknowledged significant non-performance since 2018 and therefore lack any legal standing to invoke such a mechanism. Moreover, the Security Council’s procedural inaction in September neither validates nor remedies this fundamental defect. The Council made no determination that the legal conditions for the so-called “snapback” were met. Under international law, defective or invalid procedures cannot create legal rights or obligations.

Let me state, once again, Iran’s position in the clearest possible terms: Resolution 2231 terminated definitively on 18 October 2025. As of that date, all nuclear-related provisions, measures, and restrictions were permanently terminated, the Security Council concluded its consideration of the Iranian nuclear issue, and the agenda item “Non-proliferation” was removed. Any attempt by any State or body to revive, reinterpret, or enforce these terminated provisions is null and void, without legal effect, and constitutes a clear abuse of this Council’s authority and processes.

Fourth, Iran remains fully committed to principled diplomacy and genuine negotiations. It will never submit to coercion, intimidation, or political pressure. It is now incumbent upon France, the United Kingdom, and the United States to reverse course and take concrete, credible steps to restore trust and confidence. The core principles of the JCPOA remain indisputable and valid: verifiable assurances that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful, in exchange for full recognition of Iran’s rights under the NPT—including the right to uranium enrichment—the lifting of all sanctions, and the normalization of Iran’s economy and integration into the international trading system. These principles remain entirely applicable and can provide a solid foundation for a new agreement. The essential objective is unchanged: Iran’s nuclear program must remain exclusively peaceful, and Iran stands ready to provide such assurances. If France and the United Kingdom are sincere in their declared commitment to diplomacy, they should press the United States to follow this path. If they instead continue to adopt Washington’s failed zero-enrichment policy and deny Iran’s inalienable rights under the NPT, diplomacy will be effectively destroyed. The selective invocation of the UN Charter and the pursuit of a so-called ‘peace through strength’ approach only undermine the rule of law, replacing it with the law of the jungle.

In closing, Mr. President, I wish to thank the outgoing members of the Council—Algeria, Guyana, the Republic of Korea, Sierra Leon, and Slovenia—and congratulate them on the successful completion of their two-year term. I would also like to commend, in particular, Algeria and Guyana for their principled and independent conduct throughout their tenure.

Thank you, Mr. President.

NOTE: The Islamic Republic of Iran exercised its right of reply after the representative of the United States called for zero enrichment on Iranian territory. The following is the text of the right of reply delivered by Saeed Iravani:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. With regard to the representative of the United States, we appreciate any fair and meaningful negotiations. However, insisting on a so-called zero-enrichment policy is entirely inconsistent with the rights to which Iran is entitled as a Member of the NPT. This approach demonstrates that they are not pursuing fair negotiations, but rather seeking to impose their predetermined intentions on Iran. Iran will not bow to pressure or intimidation, nor will it allow itself to be blackmailed in the international arena.

Thank you.