The Messages Behind the November 20 Resolution for Iran and Tehran

Ebrahim Motaghi wrote in a commentary: The November 20, 2025 resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors once again placed indications of coercive diplomacy against Iran on its agenda. Although the resolution was adopted with a majority of 19 votes, the 13 abstentions and 3 votes against the proposal by the 1+3 group indicate that within the Agency, signs of a “gap between reality and truth” exist. Reality is shaped by “power politics.” Naturally, the governing board of the global order enjoys the relative consensus necessary to exert pressure on Iran. Truth includes indicators of Iran’s political and strategic rights in the field of regional security and technological capabilities.

The votes cast regarding the proposed resolution are a function of the equation of power politics in the global order. In the existing political and international environment, the United States seeks to impose secondary restrictions on any country or actor possessing a “relative power advantage” and attempting to place signs of a link between reality and legitimacy on the global political agenda, while the strategic and security conflicts of the European troika and the United States to restrict Iran’s power and potential capabilities have no end.

The signs of coercive diplomacy can be observed in the “staged policy” and “step-by-step coercive diplomacy” imposed on Iran by the United States, the European troika, and the structure-oriented international institutions. Each of the measures imposed on Iran reflects aspects of the unfair power politics of the main players in the global system. The policy and strategy that began with signs of deceptive diplomacy continued through mediation and gained support from international institutionalism; however, its consequence must be seen in the military and security actions of the United States and Israel during the “12-day assault and aggression” against Iran.

Each of the aforementioned actions indicates that coercive diplomacy includes a wide range of tactical restrictions against Iran. In this process, major powers have employed diverse instruments to achieve their goals through diplomacy, international law, institutionalism, and military force. The outcome of such a process can be described as comprehensive distrust toward global diplomacy and legal mechanisms applied in international politics and the global order. The reality of world politics can be sought in indicators such as the continuation of international pressure through multilateralism.

1. The Provisions of the Resolution and Its Implications for Iran

The resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors can be considered a “manifesto of threat” against the security and strategic necessities of the Islamic Republic. The United States and Europe have opposed Iran’s empowerment in any historical period. The strategy of the United States, Israel, and European countries toward Iran has been directed toward restricting its tactical, strategic, and geopolitical power. Many Iranian theorists and analysts—including Mohiuddin Mesbahi, Nader Entessar, Vali Nasr, Mohsen Milani, and Trita Parsi, who are among the professors of American universities—consider the strategy implemented by the Israel-oriented U.S. policymakers to be a symbol of “geopolitical and strategic hostility” against Iran. As these scholars have noted, Iran’s strategic and geopolitical necessities are linked with the structural realities of the Islamic Republic in the present era, yet some actors in the American and Israeli media, communication, and intelligence apparatus attempt to project a completely different image and mindset regarding Iran and its political future. They seek to create signs of “strategic distinction” between Iran and the Islamic Republic—an approach inconsistent with the logic of power politics. The central principle of realist thought emphasizes “state-centrism.” The state is the symbol of the established and dominant political system which, during the war with the United States and Israel, employed a policy of resistance and preserved Iran’s national pride. Although the threats have not yet ended, many strategic realities indicate that structural power is the main pillar of a nation’s survival and social framework. For this reason, the aforementioned scholars, based on their scientific insights and theoretical approaches, attempt to link a new equation of power, compromise, pragmatic politics, and security with mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes.

The November 20 resolution emphasizes that Iran must act according to the Additional Protocol. The reality is that Iran accepted the Additional Protocol in 2014 with the aim of ending economic sanctions. Political officials of Iran at that historical period also promised the political institutions and social structure of Iran that all sanctions would end and a new wave of economic revival would be restored in society. However, no effective or organized cooperation was achieved by the negotiating group with Iran. The adopted resolution stresses the need for greater Iranian cooperation with the Agency under the Additional Protocol. As a result, Iran must declare all information regarding its raw materials and centrifuges to the Agency; otherwise, new pressures will be imposed against Iran. The provisions of the resolution request that Iran place the necessary conditions for full, immediate, and comprehensive cooperation with the Director General of the Agency on its agenda. The major powers who drafted the new resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors request Iran to adhere to the international decisions known as “snapback.” The resolution also requests Iran to carry out nuclear suspension in the field of nuclear fissile activity, reprocessing, and nuclear research and development. These demands indicate that the major powers, without adhering to their commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, are attempting to reimpose the restrictions of the JCPOA on the Islamic Republic of Iran.

2. The Objectives of the United States and Europe in Drafting the November 20, 2025 Resolution

The resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors can be regarded as a symbol of coercive diplomacy organized by the United States along with its European allies and adopted on Thursday, November 20, 2025. Regarding the reasons and mechanisms behind the drafting of the resolution, various approaches have been presented, each reflecting parts of the realities of coercive diplomacy in global politics. The fact is that all approaches point to the application of coercive diplomacy and relentless global political pressure against Iran.

The first option in analyzing the reasons for drafting the resolution can be seen in the use of coercive diplomacy for “persuading diplomatic engagement and cooperative processes.” This approach reflects the explanatory views of those countries that abstained from voting. This group believes that, first, a negative vote would have had no impact on the outcome sought by Grossi, the Director General of the Agency, and his structural supporters. This group of actors believes that the adopted resolution provides the grounds for “organized cooperation” and “pragmatic flexibility” for Iran, thereby preventing crisis escalation and the reproduction of military processes. Other analysts, emphasizing a second option, point out that the United States and Europe are using crisis escalation. The concept of crisis escalation in the behavioral pattern of aggressive major powers in the global system means that at every stage, a new step is taken to legitimize the aggressive actions and power politics of the United States and Israel. This can be explained by referring to past historical processes. The crisis-escalation approach operates according to the indicators of coercive diplomacy and through staged actions.

The second option has a multi-step nature. In the first step, Iran–U.S. negotiations remained incomplete and ambiguous. In the second step, the grounds emerged for “increased expectations” and “the adoption of more aggressive political and security behavior” by the United States and its allies, particularly Israel. In the view of realist theorists of international relations such as Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, power politics implies that the more flexibility a country shows in global politics, the more inevitably it will face comprehensive and intense coercive mechanisms. The third step of the major powers’ behavioral pattern in the framework of coercive diplomacy is risky and challenging in nature. According to this perspective, the resolution of the Board of Governors will not remain limited to the expectations stated. Any cooperative action or refusal by Iran in the face of coercive diplomacy will lead to intensified pressure on the Islamic Republic. Under such conditions, power politics becomes part of the tools and processes through which a wide range of major powers place a state in a siege of aggressive behavior. Although the crisis-escalation model and increased strategic pressure are shaped through diplomatic mechanisms, the escalation of crisis and increased challenges create the conditions for tactical wars and military operations. Whenever signs of crisis escalation appear in international relations, it is natural that more aggressive actions and policies will be adopted—and the proposed resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors, more than before, exposes Iran’s power and security indicators to challenges, ambiguity, and threats.

Conclusion

The resolution of the Board of Governors is an undeniable reality in international politics—one that conflicts with Iran’s legitimacy in peaceful cooperation with the Agency. The resolution emphasizes enabling Agency inspectors to access Iran’s nuclear facilities. It also requests Iran to cooperate with the Agency on the storage and conditions of 60-percent enriched uranium and to disclose their storage sites to Agency inspectors.

The demands made of Iran imply that not only will the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action lose all its identity and function, but the “Cairo Agreement,” concluded with the participation of Iran’s foreign minister, Egypt’s foreign minister, and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, will likewise lack any effectiveness in global politics. The measures applied against Iran signify that the interconnected rings of dominant global institutions aim to place Iran under structural and strategic constraints. International institutions, as instruments of their structural authority in world politics, seek through extra-legal, diplomatic, and political mechanisms to impose their will, objectives, and procedures on Iran. Such actions run contrary to the international agreements reached with Iran and, although lacking legal legitimacy, will, due to structural rules, create more dangerous and restrictive conditions for Iran. Under these circumstances, diplomacy will naturally continue, but it must not conform entirely to the objectives, discourse, and approaches of the major powers.