Statement by Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran before the Plenary of the Conference on Disarmament

Geneva 17 March 2026

Statement

by

Mr. Mohammad Hossein SAYYADNEJAD

Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran

before

The Plenary of the Conference on Disarmament

Geneva, 17 March 2026

 

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

 

Thank you, Mr. President,

We would like to join previous speakers in congratulating you on assuming the Presidency of the Conference and to thank you for convening this meeting under Agenda Item 2. We also wish to express our appreciation to the distinguished Ambassador of Switzerland for his useful presentation.

The only guarantee to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used and that a nuclear war will never be fought is through nuclear disarmament and the complete and irreversible elimination of such weapons. The founding document of the Conference on Disarmament which sets the mandate and functions of this Conference, clearly affirms that nuclear disarmament is essential to prevent the danger of nuclear war.

Furthermore, as the same document underscores, the prevention of the use of nuclear weapons constitutes another effective means of preventing nuclear war. In this regard, it should be recalled that the SSOD-I places the prevention of nuclear war alongside the avoidance of the use of nuclear weapons, and regards the prevention of the use of nuclear weapons as a pathway to preventing nuclear war.

In our view, therefore, at a time when nearly 12,000 nuclear weapons still exist —of which close to 4,000 are deployed with operational forces—and when reliance on nuclear weapons in the doctrines of nuclear-armed states continues to grow, the means and measures for preventing nuclear war should not be reduced to the production of fissile material. From our perspective, an instrument on fissile materials can contribute to the prevention of nuclear war if it: (1) is oriented toward and aimed at nuclear disarmament, and (2) encompasses all existing stockpiles of fissile materials.

We believe, and as highlighted in the founding document of this negotiating body, the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones—including in the Middle East—represents another important avenue for preventing nuclear war. By prohibiting the presence and use of nuclear weapons within a specific region, such zones can significantly reduce the likelihood of their use within the concerned regions.

With regard to nuclear disarmament as the only reliable guarantee against the occurrence of nuclear war, an established international legal framework already exists under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Under Article VI of the Treaty, nuclear-weapon states have undertaken to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament and the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. It is deeply regrettable that nuclear-weapon states have not only failed to fulfil these obligations, but in many cases have acted contrary to them. Furthermore, the outcome documents of the Review Conferences of the Treaty also contain clear commitments regarding nuclear disarmament.

The establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East was part of the package of decisions that led to the indefinite extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1995. The indefinite extension of the Treaty does not confer legitimacy on the indefinite possession of nuclear weapons by nuclear-weapon states, and the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East remains valid until its full implementation.

There are also some factors that increase the growing risks and dangers of nuclear war and therefore warrant careful consideration under Agenda Item 2 of this Conference. These include the increasing reliance on nuclear weapons in military and security doctrines, the modernization of nuclear arsenals, decreasing transparency in nuclear doctrines, the expansion of the nuclear umbrella of NATO, and the deployment of United States nuclear weapons in certain territories. All of these developments are contributing, in an alarming manner, to the heightened risk of nuclear war.

Some nuclear-weapon states, including France, are increasing their reliance on nuclear weapons and seeking to expand their nuclear umbrella, while at the same time sending misleading signals to the international community by suggesting that the prevention of nuclear war can be achieved through the conclusion of a treaty on the production of fissile material. Such a treaty would not only fail to contribute to the prevention of nuclear war, but could also deepen the existing gaps and imbalances within the Treaty.

Not only have the obligations contained in Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons not been fulfilled, but selective and politicized approaches have also undermined another fundamental pillar of the Treaty, thereby disturbing the balance embedded in its text.

While the Islamic Republic of Iran was engaged in negotiations with the United States concerning its peaceful nuclear activities—and when a negotiated solution was fully within reach—the regime of the United States and the Israeli regime committed military aggression against Iran under the pretext of Iran’s legitimate right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. This attack constitutes a clear violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations and of the fundamental principles of international law. Under Article 51 of the Charter, Iran has the inherent right to defend itself against aggression. In exercising this right, all United States bases in the region that are used for acts of aggression against Iran constitute legitimate targets for responding to such attacks. Iran reiterates that it harbours no hostility toward its neighbours and has confined its acts of self-defence to United States bases, assets, and interests in the region.

As the unlawful aggression by the regime of the United States and the Israeli regime against Iran has now entered its eighteenth day, attacks by these two axes of aggression—both armed with nuclear weapons—against Iranian civilians and civilian infrastructure continue. In continuation of his threats against the Iranian nation, the President of the United States has described attacks against Iran as “fun”, while the United States Secretary of War has recently made criminal remarks calling for the killing of the Iranian people with “no quarter.” Such acts are a clear violation of International Humanitarian Law and constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It is deeply regrettable that the Security Council, by adopting an unjust, politicized, and unbalanced resolution—without taking into account the fact that Iran is the victim of military aggression by the Israeli regime and the United States and is acting in self-defence—condemned Iran’s defensive operations while failing to condemn the aggressors. Through the adoption of this resolution, the Security Council has once again demonstrated its politicization and its inability to effectively fulfil its mandate in maintaining international peace and security.

The Islamic Republic of Iran will not hesitate in continuing its resolute self-defence and will persist in defending itself until the aggression is fully repelled and the aggressors are made to regret their actions. Having been attacked twice during negotiations, Iran is determined to end this vicious cycle and to demonstrate to the aggressors that the military option will never succeed.

Finally Mr. President, we express our appreciation to all countries that have stood on the right side and condemned the aggressors against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and people of Iran. Once again, we call upon responsible states to condemn this aggression and to uphold their responsibilities with respect to the principles of international law and the maintenance of international peace and security.

I thank you.

---