UN Security Council rift signals waning Western consensus on Iran
By Delaram Ahmadi
Staff writer
A United Nations Security Council meeting on Iran’s nuclear program and Resolution 2231 was held in New York on December 23, despite opposition from China and Russia. The session took place after Resolution 2231, which enshrined Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal, expired on October 18, meaning that Iran’s nuclear file has formally fallen off the Security Council’s agenda. However, the three European countries (France, the United Kingdom, and Germany) which shortly before the expiration activated the snapback mechanism, argue that the resolution remains in force. China and Russia questioned not only the activation of snapback but also the very legitimacy of holding the meeting. Kamran Yeganegi, an international affairs expert, told Iran Daily that deep divisions between China and Russia on one side and Western countries on the other have effectively pushed the Council into a form of decision-making paralysis on the Iran file, a political signal of a shifting global balance of power and a decline in the West’s ability to build broad-based consensus against Iran.
IRAN DAILY: How do you assess the recent Security Council meeting on Iran’s nuclear program, and what political message was embedded in holding it?
YEGANEGI: The recent UN Security Council meeting must be assessed beyond its legal façade and analyzed within its political and geopolitical context. From the standpoint of international law, the meeting produced no binding achievement or concrete executive outcome. Given the practical end of Resolution 2231’s implementation cycle and the explicit opposition of China and Russia, the Council was in no position to adopt a decision based on consensus or even minimal effective agreement. In this sense, the meeting was symbolic rather than decision-oriented.
Yet the real significance of the session lies precisely in this “deliberate symbolism”. By pushing through the meeting despite knowing that two permanent members opposed it, the United States sought to once again elevate Iran’s nuclear issue to the level of international security. This move was less about resolving the file and more about politically securitizing the issue and keeping it on the agenda of global public opinion and diplomacy.
The political message of the meeting can be summarized at three levels. First, a message to Iran: Washington aimed to signal that even without consensus and without new legal instruments, it remains capable of using the Security Council’s platform to raise Iran’s political and diplomatic costs. This is a strategy of “soft pressure,” not a genuine pathway to agreement.
Second, a message to Western allies: the United States sought to demonstrate that Iran remains a security priority and should not be reduced to a purely technical matter handled solely by the IAEA. Third, a message to the structure of the global order: the explicit opposition of China and Russia was equally meaningful, underscoring that the Security Council is no longer a venue for great-power consensus but has turned into a stage where geopolitical rifts and East-West rivalry are played out.
What real consequences do such Security Council meetings have for Iran? Are they merely symbolic and political, or can they pave the way for concrete and binding actions against Tehran?
This question must be answered realistically, without exaggeration, neither inflating the threat nor dismissing it as mere theater. These meetings on their own lack the capacity to generate new binding decisions against Iran. The absence of consensus in the Security Council and the clear opposition of China and Russia have effectively shut down the path toward adopting new resolutions or activating meaningful punitive mechanisms. In the short term, therefore, such sessions are unlikely to translate directly into new legal or sanctions-based measures against Tehran.
Page 3