Statement by  H.E. Mr. Reza DEHGHANI Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran before The Plenary of the Conference on Disarmament Geneva, 24 March 2026 ***  بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم My delegation wishes to join previous speakers in thanking you, Mr. President, for convening this meeting and expressing our appreciation to the Secretariat for their useful presentation on the Review of the Membership of the Conference. We also take note of the efforts and discussions undertaken on the membership of the Conference in the past. We are mindful that, pursuant to Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure, the Conference may review its membership at regular intervals. In this regard, the final document of the First Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (SSOD-I), together with the Rules of Procedure, provides a guiding framework. As reflected in paragraph 113 of SSOD-I, the effectiveness of disarmament efforts requires the coexistence of two complementary mechanisms: one deliberative with universal participation, and another, a negotiating body with a more limited composition. This rationale should guide any consideration of the Conference’s membership. At the same time, the Rules of Procedure—adopted in line with the provisions of SSOD-I—remain fully applicable. Rule 2 addresses membership, while Rule 18 clearly stipulates that the work and decisions of the Conference shall be conducted by consensus.   Similarly, we are also cognizant that transparency and inclusivity remain essential elements of effective multilateralism, including in the field of disarmament and international security. In this regard, promoting open and transparent processes, together with the broad and meaningful participation of all States, can enhance mutual understanding, build confidence, and contribute to more balanced and widely supported outcomes. While inclusivity and transparency are of undeniable importance, we cannot, on the one hand, remain indifferent to the erosion of the existing international legal framework and the deterioration of international peace and security, and, on the other hand, seek to strengthen existing mechanisms by focusing on secondary and peripheral issues. All existing mechanisms, including the Conference on Disarmament, operate within a legal and institutional framework rooted in the international legal order. Today, due to unilateral policies and acts of military aggression, the Charter-based international order is under sustained strain and erosion. Ensuring the proper functioning of these mechanisms, therefore, requires, first and foremost, safeguarding and reinforcing the very framework within which they operate—namely, international law and the existing international order. Furthermore, we can’t ignore the fact that the current deadlock in the Conference on Disarmament and the issue of membership are distinct and separate issues. The deadlock does not stem from the composition of the Conference. Rather, the lack of progress in fulfilling its mandate reflects insufficient political will, as well as persistent double standards and selective approaches. With regard to membership, this issue should also be approached from a broader and more comprehensive perspective, taking into account the specific context and respective mandates of each multilateral forum. In this regard, a fundamental question must be addressed: what tangible contribution would an expansion of membership make to advancing the Conference’s mandate and substantive agenda? This consideration applies equally to the question of observers. Experience has shown that some States granted observer status have, contrary to expectations, not only failed to contribute constructively to the substantive discussions in the Conference, but have also misused the Conference as a platform to level accusations against other participants. The primary mandate of the Conference on Disarmament remains the achievement of complete, irreversible, and verifiable nuclear disarmament. Should the necessary political will exist to pursue this objective without preconditions, negotiations on such an instrument would be entirely feasible, and the question of membership would naturally assume a secondary role. Geographical balance, and more importantly, the extent to which any expansion of membership would meaningfully contribute to the effective fulfillment of the Conference’s mandate, are key considerations that must guide our deliberations. The issue of membership should not be approached with a view to political alignments or the deepening of divisions within the Conference. Otherwise, the current deadlock will persist, irrespective of whether the Conference comprises 65 members or more. Mr. President, Distinguished Delegates, I cannot conclude without referring to the ongoing military aggression by the regime of the United States and the Israeli regime against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The aggression against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and people of an independent sovereign state has now entered its twenty-fifth day. In the wake of this military aggression, attacks against civilians and civilian objects in Iran persist, with an ever‑increasing number of innocent civilians, including women and children, losing their lives each day. Aggression must not be normalized in international relations, nor should the use of force be allowed to supplant international law. It is deeply regrettable that the Security Council, by adopting a highly political and unbalanced resolution—without due regard to General Assembly resolution 3314 (1974)—has failed to condemn the aggressors and those responsible for the current situation. Violations of international law, including the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian objects as war crimes and crimes against humanity, continue amid the silence of the international community. Regardless of all this, Iran will continue to exercise its inherent right of self‑defence in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and within the framework of international law. I wish to reiterate that Iran bears no hostility toward its neighbors. However, in circumstances where the territory of certain neighboring States has been used to launch attacks against Iran, Iran, in accordance with international law and General Assembly resolution 3314 (1974), has the legitimate right to target the origins of such attacks until the aggression is fully repelled. This war is not simply an act of aggression against Iran; it represents a flagrant violation of the most fundamental principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. We commend those responsible States that have already condemned this aggression and call upon all other States to take a principled stance and similarly condemn this unlawful act. I thank you. ---