Skip to main content

UN Security Council 10079th Meeting, Dec 23, 2025

This 1:48 hour long meeting should be required viewing by all persons involved or interested in the Iran nuclear conundrum. It is available on the UN website.
 
        The official UN news report summarized the meeting this way: The Security Council’s stance on Iran’s nuclear activities remained divided on the issue, split between those who support the reinstatement of sanctions, and the members who believe the sanctions should be permanently lifted, whilst questioning the legality of the meeting itself. 
        The headlines of news reports tell a mixed story: 
Security Council remains divided over Iran nuclear programme, sanctions stay in place (UN News)
Russia, China reject Iran sanctions at Security Council showdown (Iran International) 
US, Iran spar over nuclear talks at UN (Reuters) 
        Government (plus EU) statements strongly called for “diplomacy and dialogue.” The U.S. representative said President Trump had extended his hand, but responded to the Iran statement with the assertion that no uranium enrichment in Iran is acceptable. Iran responded that it will not be bullied. 
        The Russian and Chinese condemned what the E3 and the U.S. have done. Algeria and Pakistan expressed their agreement. Only Russia and Iran stressed that the military attacks by Israel and the U.S. were in violation of the UN Charter. Everyone was silent on why Iran is not providing IAEA information on its enriched uranium stockpiles - because of Israeli and U.S. threats to attack again. 
        On the constructive side, Somalia urged that the Council must remain united, and Algeria called for the UN Legal staff to assess the disagreement over termination of RES/2231 and snapback of UNSC sanctions. Hopefully it is not too much to ask that the UN Secretariat undertakes that, in spite of expected objections by the U.S., France and the UK. 
        In sum, nothing was resolved. Eldar Mamedov’s prediction that the RES/2231 matter could seriously undermine the effectiveness of the UN Security Council seems to be coming true. DJT will be happy about that.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘New war with Israel at any moment’, ‘still digging through rubble’

The news about Iran has taken an ominous tone in the last couple days. Here is some reporting and commentary.  Newsweek on August 18, 2025, reported that Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said ‘ We are not in a ceasefire; we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the U.S. or Israel. A new war with Israel could break out at any moment .’  Yonah Jeremy Bob commented in The Jerusalem Post on August 19, 2025, that ‘ Khamenei can either “drink from the poisoned chalice” of diplomatic concessions … or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly ’.   Bob also noted that ‘ right now Iran is still digging through rubbl e’. The U.S. attacked Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan on June 22. Two months of digging. No surprise that there has been no public news about that.
Post a Comment
Read more

Assessing possible outcomes of the snapback mechanism

The initiation by the E3 of the 30-day snapback mechanism in the UN Security Council makes everything more difficult and there is great uncertainty about the outcome. Will it be peaceful with a new nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the U.S., endorsed by the UNSC and verified by IAEA, or will Iran withdraw from NPT with further military action by Israel and the U.S.?                 To perhaps shed a little light on what the outcome will be, here is my analysis of how the players - Iran, U.S. and E3 - may be assessing the acceptability of the range of outcomes. Four levels of acceptability were used: 1 Fully acceptable; 2 Less acceptable; 3 Just acceptable; and 4 Not acceptable. Four near term 30-day outcomes are listed, and two optimistic outcomes with an interim U.S.-Iran agreement reached within a 6-month extension.                 For the 30-day near term, the best outcome would b...
Post a Comment
Read more

‘Making nuclear fuel’ under the NPT

It is with some hesitation that I take issue with the latest publication of the renowned Henry Sokolski and Sharon Squassoni on August 15 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled: “ Actually, the NPT doesn’t guarantee a right to make nuclear fuel .”  But someone should defend the IAEA and international safeguards! Here are points in question.            ‘ The [NPT] treaty was designed to prevent dangerous bombmaking activitie s.’  NPT is far more complex than that. It is common to state the three pillars of NPT: nuclear disarmament; nuclear nonproliferation; and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Nonproliferation involves the commitment of non-nuclear states not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept IAEA inspection to confirm that commitment is being followed. Perhaps Sokolsky intends to refer to INFCIRC/153, which lays out how IAEA and the state cooperate to carry out that confirmation. If so, INFCIRC/153 is not designed to ‘prevent’...
Post a Comment
Read more