Russia, China and Iran reject IAEA nuclear resolution as politicised

12:20

By: Azzat Manal

Russia, China and Iran reject IAEA nuclear resolution as politicised

Russia, China and Iran have jointly rejected a Western-backed draft resolution at the International Atomic Energy Agency, describing the measure as politically motivated and legally questionable. The proposal calls for the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme to be referred to the United Nations Security Council.

In a joint statement delivered by Russia on behalf of the three countries, the governments argued that the agenda item before the IAEA Board of Governors does not reflect the current circumstances surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme. They also disputed attempts by the European parties to the 2015 nuclear agreement to revive sanctions mechanisms against Tehran.

The three countries maintained that the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, expired on October 18, 2025. They therefore argued that efforts to activate the so-called snapback mechanism lack a valid legal basis.

Moscow, Beijing and Tehran also challenged a request for a report from the IAEA director general concerning Iran’s implementation of its nuclear commitments. According to their statement, such a request lacks sufficient legal grounds and risks turning what should primarily be a technical verification process into a political dispute.

Iran has repeatedly maintained that its nuclear programme is intended for peaceful purposes and that it remains committed to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Tehran has also insisted on what it describes as its right to develop nuclear energy for civilian applications.

The joint statement further condemned attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities operating under IAEA safeguards. Russia, China and Iran described such incidents as unprecedented in the agency’s history and warned that attacks on safeguarded nuclear installations could undermine the principles underpinning the global non-proliferation system.

The three governments argued that the security environment surrounding Iran has made the IAEA’s normal safeguards activities increasingly difficult. They specifically pointed to continuing military attacks involving Iran and said the current circumstances had effectively prevented inspectors from carrying out their work under normal conditions.

They also criticised the draft resolution for failing to directly address what they consider the underlying cause of the current crisis. According to the joint statement, the alleged Iranian non-compliance identified in June 2025 was politically driven and subsequently contributed to the escalation surrounding the country's nuclear facilities.

The dispute comes amid continuing tensions over the future of Iran’s nuclear programme and the international mechanisms used to monitor it. The IAEA has historically played a central role in verifying Iran’s nuclear activities, while diplomatic efforts have repeatedly sought to prevent the dispute from developing into a wider regional confrontation.

The 2015 nuclear agreement originally placed limits on Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. The United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018 and subsequently restored extensive sanctions against Tehran, while European powers attempted to preserve elements of the deal through diplomatic channels.

Russia and China have maintained close diplomatic and economic relations with Iran and have frequently criticised Western pressure on Tehran. Their joint position with Iran at the IAEA highlights the widening disagreement among major powers over how the Iranian nuclear issue should be addressed.

The three countries concluded their statement by calling for an immediate and lasting end to attacks and for the removal of threats of further military action. They argued that a sustainable solution can only be achieved through negotiations and diplomacy, urging IAEA member states to carefully consider the potential consequences of supporting the Western-backed resolution.