Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has categorically rejected attempts by Western states to reinstate sanctions that were terminated under United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.

In a formal letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Security Council President Sangiin Kim, Araghchi described the move as “null and void” and condemned it as a violation of international law and the principles of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The letter, dated September 27, 2025, denounced the recent efforts by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, collectively known as the E3, to revive expired sanctions in defiance of international consensus and procedural integrity.

Read more: Iran criticizes Europe’s snapback move as 'politically destructive'

Araghchi blasts E3 and US for undermining the Iran nuclear deal

Araghchi criticized the E3’s notification to the Security Council, calling it “legally and procedurally flawed.” He stressed that the move ignored the JCPOA’s Dispute Resolution Mechanism, violated the terms of Resolution 2231, and represented a broader political attempt to maintain pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran despite its adherence to international nuclear commitments.

The Iranian foreign minister accused the E3 of seeking to impose demands beyond the scope of the Iran nuclear deal, while simultaneously justifying “unlawful military attacks” against nuclear sites safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). He emphasized that invoking the so-called snapback mechanism was a “clear abuse of process.”

Highlighting the lack of international consensus, Araghchi pointed to the voting held on September 26, 2025, regarding a draft resolution introduced by the Republic of Korea. China, Russia, Algeria, and Pakistan opposed the reinstatement of sanctions on Iran, declaring the measures obsolete. The abstention of other members, including South Korea and Guyana, further demonstrated the draft’s lack of legitimacy.

Araghchi also recalled the Security Council’s position in 2020 when the United States unsuccessfully attempted to trigger the snapback mechanism. At that time, 13 Council members declared that the US action did not constitute a valid notification under Resolution 2231, and the Secretary-General declined to act upon it due to lack of consensus.

Read more: Lavrov blasts E3 for sabotaging Iran nuclear talks, fueling sanctions

Legal and diplomatic rebuttal to snapback mechanism

According to Araghchi, any attempt to revive resolutions previously terminated under Resolution 2231 is legally baseless and politically motivated. He reiterated that under international law, no obligations can arise from “invalid procedures or from the absence of consensus within the Council.”

He added that the actions by the E3 and the United States run counter to the views of the remaining JCPOA participants, including Iran, Russia, and China, and that Resolution 2231 clearly stipulates that the Council must take into account the views of the states involved.

“The E3, having breached their obligations under both the JCPOA and Resolution 2231, have lost any standing to invoke ‘significant non-performance,’” Araghchi stated.

Iran affirms commitment to sovereignty and diplomacy

Reaffirming Iran’s principled position, Abbas Araghchi stressed that sanctions on Iran terminated under Resolution 2231 will remain permanently lifted after October 18, 2025. He warned that any effort to extend or revive such restrictions will not be recognized by Iran or by any UN member state acting in accordance with international law.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran categorically rejects the alleged reinstatement of terminated resolutions,” Araghchi wrote. “Neither Iran nor any UN Member State is under any obligation to comply with such illegal measures.”

Araghchi urged the Secretary-General and Security Council to prevent the misuse of UN resources and structures by certain Western states seeking to enforce politically driven coercion against Iran. He also warned that any hostile move will be met with “appropriate responses” and that the responsibility for escalation will lie solely with those choosing confrontation over diplomacy.