AhlulBayt News Agency: Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez has strongly condemned the recent UN Security Council vote on snapback sanctions against Iran.
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez has strongly condemned the recent UN Security Council vote on snapback sanctions against Iran. In his post on X on Saturday, Rodríguez rejected the decision, saying it undermines Iran’s sovereign right to peacefully pursue its nuclear program and further erodes stability in the Middle East.
During the September 19 Security Council session, both China and Russia joined a growing chorus of criticism against the European troika (UK, Germany, and France) for their efforts to reimpose sanctions on Iran under the snapback mechanism of UNSC Resolution 2231.
China (via its UN representative Fu Cong) criticized the snapback push as “unfair and unreasonable,” arguing that the E3’s initiative lacked legitimacy because it ignored key procedural and diplomatic frameworks. Fu stated that the action risked reversing years of negotiation progress, increasing tensions, harming the possibility of trust with Iran, and jeopardizing peace efforts. He emphasized that diplomacy and dialogue remain the only viable paths forward.
Russia, through Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia, declared that Europe had lost its legal ground to initiate snapback, arguing that the E3’s claim is misusing the JCPOA dispute resolution mechanism. According to Russia, the draft resolution presented by South Korea failed to comply with the legal requirements of Resolution 2231, and the European effort represents a political rather than diplomatic move.
The proposal by South Korea to officially lift protection from sanctions failed to secure the necessary nine votes. Only four states—China, Russia, Pakistan, and Algeria—voted in favor, while nine opposed and two abstained. This outcome, while allowing snapback sanctions to proceed under the letter of the mechanism, underscored that the European push does not have broad international endorsement.
Countries including Cuba, China, Russia, Pakistan, and Algeria have publicly voiced opposition not just to the legal validity of the snapback initiative, but to the broader ethical and diplomatic implications. These reactions suggest Iran’s position is increasingly supported among non-Western powers.
Through statements at the UN, Iran and its allies argue that Europe’s deployment of snapback is not being made in good faith. Critics say the E3 members are skipping or circumventing dispute resolution processes, ignoring Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, and treating snapback as a political weapon rather than a legal safeguard. China’s Fu Cong explicitly warned that such unilateral measures risk nullifying years of diplomatic work and trust.
Russia, likewise, described Europe’s effort as counterproductive and asserted that such moves can push Iran toward retaliatory or defensive postures. Moscow and Beijing have proposed a technical extension of JCPOA and Resolution 2231, citing the need to buy time for diplomatic engagement rather than repeat cycles of sanctions and confrontation.
....................
End/ 257
Your Comment