Iran nuclear case reveals opposition to system of global management
On October 18, Iran, Russia, and China submitted a joint letter to the United Nations declaring that Resolution 2231, which enshrined the 2015 nuclear agreement (JCPOA), had expired, and that Iran’s nuclear case should therefore be removed from the Security Council’s agenda.
The letter directly challenged the actions of France, Germany, and Britian, which had triggered the so-called snapback mechanism to reinstate UN sanctions previously lifted under the resolution. The trio dismissed the European move as lacking any “legal or procedural legitimacy.” Yet how far these legal and diplomatic maneuvers can offset or offset the impact of the council’s decisions remains a matter of debate.
Abbas Aslani, an international affairs analyst, believes that the world today is divided, not only over Iran’s nuclear issue, but also over the broader question of Western-imposed policies. In an interview with Iran Daily, he elaborated on the dimensions of this divide.
IRAN DAILY: Considering the legal and diplomatic actions by Iran, China, and Russia about Resolution 2231 and their rejection of the snapback mechanism, can it be said that a united Eastern front has emerged against the West’s hegemonic policies?
ASLANI: What has taken place is not limited to Iran, Russia, and China. Even the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), comprising around 120 member states, expressed support for this position and for the expiration of Resolution 2231 in its recent summit in Uganda. These nations include several geopolitically and demographically significant states. China and Russia are permanent members of the UN Security Council, while NAM itself represents a large portion of the global community. This indicates the emergence of a major divide, one that arguably has few precedents in recent decades. At the very least, it shows that the world has split into two camps over this issue.
This division, however, extends far beyond Iran’s nuclear file or Resolution 2231. It reflects two competing worldviews regarding global governance. On one side are those clinging to Cold War-era mentalities, trying to impose unilateral dictates through outdated rules and norms. On the other side are countries, notably Iran, Russia, China, and members of NAM, that insist such an order no longer works and that the system of global management must be reformed. The confrontation between these two visions is quite significant.
To what extent can these measures undermine the legitimacy of the reinstated UN sanctions and encourage other countries to disregard them?
Such actions, coupled with the backing of NAM members, could significantly cast doubt on the legitimacy of decisions made by the US and European countries. They may also affect both the implementation and effectiveness of those measures. Russia’s Foreign Ministry, currently presiding over the Security Council, issued a detailed statement declaring that Resolution 2231 had “expired,” along with all its provisions and restrictions related to Iran’s nuclear program. It also urged the UN Secretariat to correct its official website accordingly. Given Russia’s current chairmanship of the council, this statement carried weight.
China’s stance is also noteworthy, given its strong economic capacity and crucial role in Iran’s trade relations. Both positions effectively undermine the credibility and impact of the Western sanctions, not to mention that other nations, including members of NAM, have similarly voiced support.
At a broader level, this episode highlights growing rifts in how global issues are handled. Beyond the nuclear dispute, differing visions among Russia, China, and several independent nations vis-à-vis Western powers mark a deeper structural shift in international politics — one that deserves close attention.
Could these efforts eventually pave the way for a new Security Council resolution lifting sanctions on Iran altogether?
While such a scenario might be conceivable, these efforts would not necessarily entail a new resolution. Passing any resolution at the Security Council requires at least nine affirmative votes and no veto from permanent members. Therefore, achieving that would depend on reaching a consensus with Western states, something currently out of reach given their existing positions in the nuclear talks. Although this possibility cannot be entirely ruled out in the future, under current circumstances it seems premature to talk up such prospects.
Page 3