An Analysis on the Adoption the IAEA Board of Governors’ Resolution Against Iran

Strategic Council Online - Interview: An international lawyer and senior expert on international affairs said: The abstention and negative votes to the resolution of the Board of Governors regarding Iran should not overshadow the importance of the resolution’s content. In the past, there had been resolutions that were adopted with a similar voting ratio but that, nevertheless, ultimately left a negative impact on the nuclear dossier by shifting the course towards an unfavorable direction.

In an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations about the consequences of the adoption of a censure resolution against Iran in the recent meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors, Reza Nasri said:

In their letter to the Security Council, France, the UK, and Germany referred to the expiration of Resolution 2231 in October 2025, implicitly warning against the possibility of reviving the Security Council’s past sanction resolutions against Iran and signaling thereby that they would use all available leverages to confront Iran. Of course, going down this path, which means returning conditions to the pre-JCPOA era, would not benefit either party.

Alluding to the possibility of Donald Trump taking office in the United States again, Nasri said: We should not neglect the fact that Trump’s possible return to power in the US would make the situation more difficult for everyone. In fact, both sides are on the path of escalation, and continuing to move in this direction would then have significant consequences for the involved parties and for the region alike.

About the negative votes and abstentions to the resolution among the members of the Board of Governors, this expert on International affairs said: Abstentions should not distract us from of the significance and consequences of this resolution. In the past, there have been abstentions in the worst resolutions adopted by the Board of Governors in similar proportions; Nevertheless, those resolutions ultimately left their impact and pushed the path of the nuclear case in an unfavorable direction.

Regarding the negative vote of China and Russia to the resolution as two important members of the Board of Governors and the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), Reza Nasri said: China and Russia’s vote was a positive sign but if Iran shows a disproportionate reaction to the resolution, these two countries’ position may become more critical as well and leave Iran in a more difficult situation. China and Russia have always been sensitive to the implementation of the NPT and to the fate of the non-proliferation regime, and if they deem Iran’s reaction to be overly disproportionate, they may adopt a less favorable stance at the next BoG meeting.

Nasri added: In the joint statement issued by Iran, Russia, and China following the adoption of the recent resolution at the IAEA, they emphasized the importance of the JCPOA as a “win-win” agreement while blaming Western countries for not adhering to the commitments. Nasri pointed out that all participants in the JCPOA should try to move from the current dynamics of “increasing confrontation and escalation” to dynamics marked by “détente and de-escalation” in view of achieving a “relative balance” in this relationship. Regarding reports about the U.S. effort to moderate the draft resolution submitted by the three European countries, this international affairs expert stated that America’s effort to modify the text of the resolution may indicate that the Biden administration is aware of the consequences of going further down the path of escalation and thus seeks to leave open a window for diplomacy.