The United States on Wednesday called on the United Nations Security Council to confront Iran over its nuclear program, hours after Britain suggested it could trigger a return of UN sanctions if Tehran does not curb its uranium enrichment.
"Iran continues to flagrantly defy the Security Council, violate its IAEA safeguards obligations, and ignore the clear and consistent concerns of both the Council and the international community," the US mission to the United Nations said in a statement.
"The Council must be clear and united in addressing and condemning this brazen behavior," the statement added, recalling the so-called maximum pressure strategy advanced by the administration of President Donald Trump as the most effective way to stop Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons.
Iran’s foreign ministry on Wednesday dismissed the Security Council meeting as "without technical or legal justification," insisting its nuclear activities are peaceful.
UN sanctions coming back?
Earlier in the day, a UK ambassador to the UN said London could trigger a so-called snapback mechanism to restore United Nations sanctions on Iran if Tehran does not curb its uranium enrichment.
"We will take any diplomatic measures to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, and that includes the use of snapback if needed," UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN James Kariuki told reporters ahead of the closed-door meeting on Iran.
Six UN Security Council members—France, Greece, Panama, South Korea, Britain, and the US—called for the urgent meeting to discuss Iran's non-compliance with IAEA requests.
Kariuki said the meeting was called due to serious concerns over a recent International Atomic Energy Agency report which found Iran had accumulated 275 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity.
"That’s way beyond anything needed for civilian use, and no other non-nuclear state has anything like that amount," he said.
He added that London welcomed overtures by US President Donald Trump to Tehran on renewed talks, saying, "We would encourage Iran to engage seriously. We would like diplomacy to work, so we're going to give it our best shot."
Beijing pushes for diplomacy
China, another permanent member of the Security Council, suggested before the closed-door meeting that pressuring Iran further may not be helpful.
Applying maximum pressure on a particular country will not yield the desired outcome," Beijing's UN envoy Fu Cong said.
"We should use the limited time left until the deadline in October to reach a new and sustainable agreement, because that is the best solution," he added, referring to the date when the UN's sanctions relief agreed as part of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran expires.
In 2015, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Britain, Germany, France, the US, Russia, and China, trading sanctions relief for nuclear program curbs.
Washington withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 under President Donald Trump, prompting Tehran to scale back its commitments.
Britain, France, and Germany have informed the UN Security Council of their readiness to trigger a snapback of international sanctions to prevent the Islamic Republic from acquiring nuclear weapons, a measure they will lose the ability to enact on October 18th.
Outlining the challenges facing policymakers considering such action, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argued that such an action would be the opening round of a long campaign built upon decades of covert efforts and will escalate in pace and intensity.
"A preventive attack is unlikely to be a solitary event, but rather the opening round of a long campaign employing military strikes, covert action, as well as economic, informational, and other elements of national power," the report said.
The research, written by Michael Eisenstadt, said that a successful preventive strike against Iran's nuclear program requires: eliminating materials and facilities, enabling covert rebuilding disruption, securing political support, and crafting a post-strike strategy to deter Iran from rebuilding.
However, the threat of military action could prompt Iran to hide materials, complicating future strikes. It also risks pushing Iran to abandon its current nuclear hedging strategy and accelerate weaponization.
Eisenstadt suggested that the preparatory phase has already begun, citing Israel's airstrikes targeting Iranian radar systems in April and October 2024, which weakened air defenses around key nuclear and missile sites.
"A lengthy campaign would be required because key installations associated with Iran’s nuclear program are located at over a half-dozen sites," the report said, noting that some are hardened and buried, making complete destruction unlikely.
According to the research, Israeli leaders view Iran's current vulnerability as an opportunity to degrade its nuclear capabilities. "Many Israelis believe that Iran’s current weakness provides a unique opportunity to destroy, or at least set back, its nuclear program through a military strike".
US President Donald Trump has reaffirmed his position that "Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon," expressing readiness for diplomatic engagement but suggesting military action as a last resort. He said there are "two ways of stopping [Iran], with bombs or with a written piece of paper."
The report also warned of Iran’s likely response to a possible attack, saying that it could range from measured retaliations to severe escalation, including potential withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) or further restrictions on the UN nuclear watchdog's operations in the country.
"Tehran might feel a need to respond massively to a preventive strike, although recent setbacks inflicted by Israel on its proxy forces and missile production capability may limit its ability to do so. It could also respond by withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and expelling International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors," it added.
In 2023, Iran already banned at least one third of inspectors with the UN's nuclear chief voicing frustration at Iran's intransigence.
Eisenstadt also highlighted Iran's resilience, warning that following a strike, Iran would likely attempt to rebuild its nuclear capabilities, potentially hiding clandestine facilities in civilian areas or deeply buried sites believed to be beyond the reach of Israel or the United States.
"Thus, in the aftermath of a strike, Iran will likely try to rebuild, perhaps hiding small clandestine centrifuge-enrichment and weaponization facilities in plain sight (e.g., in residential areas or civilian industrial parks), or more likely, in hardened, deeply buried facilities which it believes are beyond the reach of Israel or the United States."
It is not the first time experts warn of Iran's resilience. Last month, Sina Azodi, an expert on US-Iran relations, told the Eye for Iran podcast that Iran can easily rebuild nuclear facilities hit by air attacks.
"Once you know how to make a car, it doesn't matter how many times you get into a car accident. You can still rebuild it," he said.
The potential for clandestine rebuilding necessitates "follow-on covert action and military strikes to disrupt and delay efforts to rebuild" in the years following an initial attack, according to the Washington Institute report.
The analysis concluded that if diplomacy fails to dismantle Iran's nuclear program, policymakers must weigh the risks of a nuclear-threshold Iran against military intervention. While a strike risks triggering nuclear proliferation, it may also enable the long-term containment of a weakened Iran, Eisenstadt argued.
He said that fearing a change in its leadership, which US assurances may not alleviate, Iran might retaliate more aggressively and accelerate its nuclear program after a preventive strike.