The text, presented by the President of the Council, the Republic of Korea, received only four votes in favor, from Russia, China, Algeria and Pakistan, Do not ensure the nine required for adoption.
Denmark, France, Greece, Panama, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Somalia, the United Kingdom and the United States voted against. Guyana and the Republic of Korea abstained.
If it had been adopted, the resolution would have finished the UN sanctions imposed on Iran before the 2015 Comprehensive Comprehensive Action Plan (or JCPOA), thus preserving the relief of the sanctions provided to Tehran under the agreement.
Snapback ‘terms
Resolution 2231, which supported the JCPOA in July 2015, established the process by which the UN sanctions would be lifted, while establishing a mechanism to reimpose them in case of “significant breach” by any of its participants: China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU) and Iran.
According to paragraph 11, if one of the signatories notifies the Council of a significant violation, the president of the Council must, within 30 days, put a draft resolution to the vote for the relief of the sanctions to continue.
If the draft is not adopted, the previous UN sanctions are automatically reimposed, which means that Unless the Council votes explicitly to maintain the relief of sanctions instead, the previous UN sanctions are automatically restored.
The members of the Security Council vote on the resolution project.
Heated discussions
At the beginning of Friday’s meeting, Russia raised a point of order, rejecting the European claim to activate the Snapback mechanism.
Russian ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said there were no legal reasons, policies or procedures to allow the “Snapback” mechanism or vote on the project of resolution, and accused France, Germany and the United Kingdom of acting outside resolution 2231 and the JCPOA.
He said that the three had not been able to follow the mechanism of dispute settlement and, on the other hand, imposed unilateral sanctions against Iran, which he described as “illegal.”
“The attempts by European countries to present the situation as if they had the right to activate the punitive provisions of the previous resolutions, while they do not fulfill their own obligations … They cannot maintain the water,” said Ambassador Nebenzia.
China also urged caution.
Ambassador Fu Cong said that the “main discrepancies” existed among the members of the Council on Snapback and warned that a hurried vote could “exacerbate state confrontation”, which complicates efforts to solve the diplomatically.
The ambassador of the United Kingdom Barbara Woodward responded, stating that the decision E3 (the European participants of the JCPOA) to invoke Snapback was “completely legal, justified, broad and consistent with the requirements of resolution 2231”.
He cited the notification of August 28, 2025 presented by France, Germany and the United Kingdom: “Everything that is required to activate Snapback is … a notification of a participating state of JCPOA of a problem that believes that it constitutes a significant performance of commitments under the JCPOA,” he said.
France spoke before the vote, citing Iran’s growing nuclear program and its reduction in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (OIEA).
Ambassador Jérôme Bonnafont said that Iran had accumulated enriched uranium reserves much higher than the limit established by the agreement and the restricted access to the OIEA to the key facilities.
He called the Snapback mechanism necessary to preserve international peace and security, and the integrity of the global non -proliferation regime.