UN Security Council ...
Page 1
At the same time, these meetings are not purely symbolic or devoid of impact. Their real consequences manifest primarily at the political and diplomatic level. Each time Iran’s file is raised in the Security Council, even without an executive outcome, it sends a signal to the international community that Iran continues to be viewed as an “unresolved security case.” This atmosphere can indirectly influence the behavior of some governments, economic relations, and even the calculations of regional actors.
The core function of these meetings is gradual, attritional pressure rather than a decisive strike. The United States and certain Western countries use the Security Council as a platform to pile up political pressure, that may remain rhetorical today but could be converted into harder measures if international power balances shift. More importantly, the continuation of this trend risks pulling Iran’s nuclear file out of its technical and legal track and deeper into the arena of great-power geopolitical rivalry, where decisions are shaped less by international law than by political trade-offs.
How does the rift among permanent members of the Security Council affect its effectiveness in managing Iran’s file?
The Security Council no longer enjoys the structural cohesion it once had in past decades. Deep disagreements between China and Russia on one side and Western countries on the other have effectively pushed the Council into a state of decision-making paralysis, unable to generate consensus, pass new resolutions, or exert coordinated and effective pressure on Iran. The Security Council has become less a crisis-resolution mechanism and more a mirror of geopolitical competition among great powers. Iran is no longer merely a “nuclear file,” but part of a broader East-West equation, in which every decision on Iran is filtered through the strategic calculations of China and Russia vis-à-vis the West.
For this reason, the December 23 meeting should not be viewed as a legal turning point, but rather as a political signal of a shifting global balance of power. The meeting was less a sign of Western strength than of its limitations, demonstrating that the West’s capacity to forge broad-based consensus against Iran has significantly declined. Automatic alignment no longer exists, nor is it possible to convert political pressure into binding decisions without Eastern backing.
This does not mean that Western pressure tools have vanished entirely. The West can still act outside the Security Council through unilateral sanctions or political and media pressure.
Looking ahead, which pathways for a political resolution of Iran’s nuclear crisis appear more plausible?
The future of Iran’s nuclear file depends on political will and regional and international developments and can be summarized in four main frameworks.
First, a limited, step‑by‑step agreement. In the short term, the likely path is a phased deal that tackles urgent issues, such as setting clear limits on nuclear activity, and offering modest economic relief. Its purpose is managing the file, not delivering a final resolution.
Second, diplomacy with a new formula. A full revival of past frameworks seems unlikely; instead, a mix of nuclear commitments, confidence‑building measures, and updated monitoring could provide relative stability and predictability, rather than a comprehensive deal.
Third, managing the case at the technical level. With divisions in the Security Council, Iran’s nuclear file may shift toward the IAEA, while the Council’s role diminishes. This path relies on sustaining technical channels, minimum transparency, and avoiding renewed securitization.
Fourth, continuation of the gray zone. Without sufficient political will, the likely outcome is a controlled stalemate, neither a lasting deal nor a full crisis. This scenario means sustained pressure and sporadic talks, piling up political and economic costs without resolving the core issue.
In the near term, a limited and phased agreement appears more plausible than the other options, given the high costs of prolonged deadlock for all sides and the still-wide political distance separating them from a comprehensive deal. Ultimately, the fate of Iran’s nuclear file hinges above all on one factor: keeping diplomatic channels open and preventing the issue from being reduced to a mere arena of geopolitical rivalry.