TEHRAN – In a dramatic development at the UN on Friday, September 19, 2025, the Security Council voted against a proposal to expand Iran’s sanctions relief, paving the way for an automatic re-challenges of previous UN sanctions under the so-called “snapback” mechanism.
Countries opposed to the proposal included the United States, the UK, France, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Denmark, Greece, Panama and Somalia. Guyana and South Korea are hoping to vote.
To better understand the rationale behind some of these conflicting positions, the Tehran Times conducted an exclusive interview with journalist Shek Putka Kamara and conducted Freetown with the editors/partners of the Expo Times Newspaper and Expo Magazine. Kamala shared insights into Sierra Leone’s decision to oppose the proposal, reflecting both regional and diplomatic considerations.
Below is the full interview:
What are the underlying political or diplomatic factors that influenced the Sierra Leone and Somali decision to support the activation of snapback mechanisms against Iran?
One thing is certain. The United States does not stop anything to create a dominant influence on other countries. While Iran’s wars may be a natural and inevitable conflict between the Islamic systems, Sierra Leone as a smaller force could sway the utilitarian perspective. Provide the greatest benefits to the largest number. Therefore, factors may revolve around foreign policy and other factors.
Can we shed light on the economic, military or diplomatic relations between Somali Sierra Leone and the Western countries that support the snapback mechanism?
Somalia is home to most of the peacekeeping forces in Sierra Leone. They benefit from such missions. As early as May 2025, 38 Sierra Leonen Peacekeeping Mission Officers returned from Somalia. This tends to create some professional rifts between the two countries, as when reasonably sought.
How is this vote recognized nationally in Sierra Leone and Somalia? Are there any important public debates or media reports about our country’s stance on Iran?
I don’t know. In fact, preserve the international agenda and people, especially locals, do not talk about such issues. This suggests that as far as general agenda setting is concerned, topics are not as open as other topics.
What does the Sierra Leone and Somali vote mean in terms of international status and future relationships with Iran and other Middle Eastern countries?
That’s obvious. Risk factors always work. The best option is to take action that is appropriate for Iran. Otherwise, it may be inevitable if there is no lost love.
Do you think the decision to vote in favor reflects the broader alignment or reorganization of Sierra Leone and Somali foreign policy priorities?
Probably so, but the same thing is the question of waiting time and viewing.
From your perspective, what impact could this vote have on the reliability and functionality of the UN Security Council and its mechanisms?
To some extent. Sierra Leone is currently considered an active player. So it is best practice to do the right thing and is in the country’s greatest benefit.
Are there historical precedents or patterns in the Sierra Leone and Somali voting records that can help explain their current position?
There is not at all. I think the current status/trends are definitely circumstanced.
Do you think Sierra Leone will maintain a similar stance on Iran-related issues in the future, or is it possible to reevaluate it?
There is always room for some reevaluation. This is to suggest that the state may have the freedom to review and resubmit positions and positions, and in the case of Sierra Leone it may or should not.