The Ripple Effect of UN Sanctions on Iran’s Nuclear Program
from Middle East Program
from Middle East Program

The Ripple Effect of UN Sanctions on Iran’s Nuclear Program

Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations Amir-Saeid Iravani speaks at a stakeout at the UN headquarters in New York City, September 19, 2025.
Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations Amir-Saeid Iravani speaks at a stakeout at the UN headquarters in New York City, September 19, 2025. Eduardo Munoz/Reuters

Zero nuclear enrichment is no longer solely an American position, and it will isolate the Iranian regime even further at a volatile time in the Middle East.

September 29, 2025 3:14 pm (EST)

Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations Amir-Saeid Iravani speaks at a stakeout at the UN headquarters in New York City, September 19, 2025.
Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations Amir-Saeid Iravani speaks at a stakeout at the UN headquarters in New York City, September 19, 2025. Eduardo Munoz/Reuters
Expert Brief
CFR scholars provide expert analysis and commentary on international issues.

Ray Takeyh is the Hasib J. Sabbagh senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

More From Our Experts

On Sunday, the United Nations announced that it had reimposed so-called snapback sanctions on Iran. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom said Iran had left them “no choice” but to bring back the sanctions that were suspended a decade ago under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). 

More on:

Iran

Middle East

Nuclear Energy

United Nations

United States

Though the sanctions on Iran were set to expire permanently on October 18, any signatory to the deal had the right to bring back the sanctions if they believed Iran had not fulfilled its commitments under the agreement, which was intended to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful. European negotiators told the UN Security Council last month that Iran had violated “the near entirety of its JCPOA commitments,” and they signaled their intention to trigger the snapback sanctions. 

Here are some of the major implications of the renewed sanctions, how they could affect Iran and the region, and whether diplomacy has a path forward. 

The fallout of UN sanctions on Iran

This is a profound setback for Iran. Even in the aftermath of the bombing of its nuclear facilities in June by Israel and the United States, Iran kept insisting that it was open to dialogue with the West and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran even negotiated a new workplan with the IAEA, though it had suspended its cooperation with the nuclear inspection agency in July after the U.S.-Israeli strikes. To some extent, this openness was due to fears of continued attacks, but it also stemmed from Iran’s concern about the snap back of UN Security Council resolutions. 

More From Our Experts

Iran is one of the most heavily sanctioned countries and it has already been largely segregated from the global markets. The penalties imposed are less about economics than security measures. The conventional arms embargo is reinstated. There will be prohibitions on transfer of nuclear technologies and missile development. Member states are also authorized to inspect cargo going in and out of Iran, although it is unclear who will actually do this. 

The snapback was opposed by both Russia and China, and thus it is inevitable that they draw closer to Iran. China, the main player, already purchases about 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports, but at a discounted rate. The fear in Iran is that China will demand even steeper discounts given how isolated the regime is today.

More on:

Iran

Middle East

Nuclear Energy

United Nations

United States

The diminishing prospect of future talks 

Zero nuclear enrichment is no longer just an American position—it is the position of the European governments. The reinstated resolutions call for Iran to dispense with enrichment, thus enshrining that principle in international law. One of the achievements of the Donald Trump administration is that it reclaimed the principle of zero enrichment that was conceded in the Iran nuclear deal. 

Throughout this process, Iran has remained open to talks with the United States. But it has also insisted that it will not abandon enrichment, nor will it accept any restrictions on its missile arsenal. Ali Larijani, the peripatetic secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, stressed the following: “Any talks about curbing Tehran’s missile program are a non-starter. The Americans insist we negotiate specifically about Iran’s missiles. They’ve demanded no enrichment at all, or missile ranges below 300 kilometers (185 miles), now 500 kilometers (310 miles)—essentially stripping us of key defensive and offensive capabilities.” Should there be talks between the two states, they are likely to be quickly deadlocked.

Regardless, the regime has survived the war intact. While many of its key personnel were killed, it has managed to replace them and impose order on the streets. Mass arrests and executions are not the order of day in Iran. However, the country is permeated with fear that a war can restart at any time. Both Israel and the United States have come out of the twelve-day war believing they impose costs on Iran with impunity. So long as they are not disabused of that impression, there exists the possibility of conflict.

Still, Iran has sustained its redlines that it will not abandon enrichment or discuss its tatter missile program. The idea of exchanging nuclear concessions for sanctions relief has little audience in Iran’s corridors of power. 

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the author. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

United States

CFR President Michael Froman analyzes the Trump administrations new National Security Strategy.

Venezuela

The opposition and the Maduro regime will face a new variable at the negotiating table: the United States and its heavy military presence off Venezuela’s coast. As a direct party, the Trump administration now has an opportunity to learn the lessons of the past to bring a potential conflict to a close. 

Taiwan

Assumptions about how a potential conflict between the United States and China over Taiwan would unfold should urgently be revisited. Such a war, far from being insulated, would likely draw in additional powers, expand geographically, and escalate vertically.