WANA (Jun 10) – The United Nations Security Council held a meeting on Tuesday focused on the activities of the 1737 Sanctions Committee on Iran. However, Russia and China once again used what observers describe as a “silent veto” to block the practical revival of oversight mechanisms associated with the reimposition of international sanctions on Iran.

 

The meeting highlighted the deep divisions among Security Council members over the legal interpretation of the activation of the so-called “snapback” mechanism. This mechanism was triggered last year by the three European members of the JCPOA—the United Kingdom, France, and Germany.

 

Western countries argue that once the snapback mechanism was activated, all previous UN sanctions resolutions against Iran automatically came back into force. Consequently, they maintain that the 1737 Sanctions Committee and its affiliated bodies should also resume their activities.

 

Russia, China, and Iran reject this interpretation. They argue that with the expiration of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and the formal end of the JCPOA in October 2025, all Security Council sanctions on Iran were permanently terminated and Iran’s nuclear file was removed from the Council’s agenda.

 

The 1737 Committee: The Enforcement Arm of Sanctions

Established in 2006 as part of the Security Council’s first package of sanctions against Iran, the 1737 Committee played a central role in implementing and monitoring those sanctions. Its responsibilities included updating the list of sanctioned individuals and entities, reviewing member states’ reports on sanctions implementation, investigating alleged violations, and issuing implementation guidance.

 

Alongside the committee, a panel of independent experts was established in 2010 to conduct technical assessments of sanctions enforcement, identify potential violations, and provide specialized reports to the Security Council. Both bodies were dissolved following the adoption of the JCPOA and Resolution 2231 in 2015.

 

Western governments now argue that if sanctions have indeed been restored, these institutions should also be reactivated. In practice, however, reviving them requires consensus within the Security Council—a requirement that Russia and China have leveraged to prevent the full implementation of the sanctions regime.

 

How the “Silent Veto” Works

The snapback mechanism was originally designed to prevent Russia and China from using their formal veto power to block the return of sanctions. Nevertheless, Moscow and Beijing have found another way to obstruct the process.

 

The 1737 Committee and its expert panel operate on the basis of consensus, meaning that opposition from any member can halt their activities. Since March, Russia and China have relied on this procedural requirement to block the approval of agendas, periodic reports, and even the re-establishment of the expert panel itself.

 

According to reports presented to the Security Council, the two countries had already prevented the restoration of the committee’s 90-day reporting cycle. At the most recent meeting, they also objected to the agenda proposed by Colombia, the Council’s rotating president.

 

A Continuing East–West Divide

During Tuesday’s meeting, representatives of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and other like-minded countries insisted that all UN sanctions on Iran remain valid and legally binding. They called on Iran to return to compliance with its nuclear commitments and criticized Russia and China for obstructing the effective functioning of the sanctions committee.

 

France’s representative stated that Moscow and Beijing had blocked several important decisions in recent months, including updates to sanctions listings.

 

Russia and China, meanwhile, reiterated their position that the activation of the snapback mechanism was unlawful and argued that the 1737 Committee no longer exists as a legal entity. Iran’s representative to the United Nations likewise asserted that, following the expiration of Resolution 2231, there is no legal basis for either the committee’s continued operation or meetings related to its activities.

 

Sanctions Existing Only on Paper?

Analysts argue that continued Russian and Chinese opposition to the routine operations of the sanctions committee could significantly undermine the practical effectiveness of the sanctions regime claimed by Western countries. Without updated sanctions lists, a functioning expert panel, and ongoing monitoring of compliance, the sanctions risk becoming little more than a set of unenforceable regulations.

 

At the same time, any attempt by Western countries to establish parallel mechanisms outside the Security Council framework would face substantial legal and political challenges. Such a move could call into question the legitimacy of the UN decision-making system and create a precedent for bypassing established international institutions.

 

Overall, recent developments suggest that the legal and political struggle over the future of international sanctions on Iran has entered a new phase—one in which Russia and China, without resorting to their formal veto powers, have effectively managed to disable a significant portion of the sanctions regime’s enforcement machinery.