The UN Security Council held an emergency session following US-led strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Member states are sharply divided, with Russia, China, and Pakistan proposing a ceasefire resolution that is unlikely to pass. UN Secretary-General Guterres warned of a dangerous downward spiral in the region. The US and Israel defended the military action, while Iran condemned it and promised to respond. The current state of affairs calls for immediate diplomatic efforts to mitigate further escalation.
Tensions are undeniably high at the United Nations Security Council this week following recent US-led military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. This emergency session was urgently called amid a backdrop of escalating violence in the Middle East, with both the US and Israel defending their actions while other member states condemned the strikes. The response has been swift and polarized, showcasing the deep divisions within the Council regarding the conflict involving the US, Israel, and Iran.
Several nations, notably Russia, China, and Pakistan, are pushing a resolution that demands an “immediate and unconditional ceasefire.” This draft, revealed through diplomatic channels, criticizes the US and Israel’s military actions but does not specifically name them. However, the likelihood of passing this resolution is low, given that it requires support from at least nine members and must avoid vetoes from the five permanent members, including the US, which is highly unlikely to condemn its own actions.
Adding to the gravity of the situation, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed concern during the session, suggesting that the region is perilously close to further descent into violence. He highlighted the US bombings as a “perilous turn” and warned that continuing down this path could lead to a cycle of retaliation that may spiral beyond control. Guterres urged the need for immediate action to halt escalation and to resume negotiations concerning the Iran nuclear program.
In defense of the military operations, acting US ambassador Dorothy Shea asserted that the strikes were necessary to diminish Iran’s nuclear ambitions and protect US interests and its allies. Shea emphasized that drastic measures were warranted and underscored that any aggression from Iran would face serious consequences. She made it clear that the US responded decisively, driven by a need to protect its citizens.
On the other side, Iran’s ambassador, Ali Bahreini, rejected the accusations against his country and defended Iran’s right to respond. He suggested that the US and its allies are to blame for the current violence and that their actions have undermined diplomatic efforts. Moreover, Bahreini hinted that Iran would decide its own response timing and nature.
Israel’s envoy to the UN, Danny Danon, maintained that the military actions had increased global security. He insinuated that the Iranian people should decide their own leadership’s fate, rejecting the notion of the US or Israel influencing regime change in Tehran. This reflects Israel’s long-standing position in the region and its continued support from the US.
China’s envoy, Fu Cong, also condemned the US’s military actions and echoed concerns over rising tensions, calling for an immediate ceasefire. Moreover, Russia’s UN representative, Vasily Nebenzya, characterized the US actions as a blatant disregard for international norms, likening it to opening a Pandora’s box that could lead to catastrophic consequences.
Pakistan’s ambassador, Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, expressed deep concern over the violence stemming from Israeli aggression and reiterated Pakistan’s support for Iran during this period of heightened distress. Interestingly, just a day earlier, Pakistan proposed nominating former President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, which adds a layer of complexity to the diplomatic rhetoric.
The official announcement by President Trump regarding the obliteration of significant Iranian nuclear sites marks a pivotal moment in Western military actions against Iran since the 1979 revolution. The fallout from these actions may have far-reaching implications. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, informed the Council about the extent of damage seen at crucial sites like Fordow and Isfahan, although the overall impact remains hard to determine.
In the backdrop of this military escalation, the IAEA Board of Governors had approved a resolution just before the initial attack on June 13, indicating that Iran was not adhering to its nuclear commitments. This development has sparked criticism from Iran, which asserts that the IAEA has facilitated an environment that led to its attacks by the US and Israel.
The recent UN Security Council session highlights the escalating tensions following US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. With both allies and adversaries reacting strongly, the prospect for a ceasefire appears grim. The situation emphasizes the precarious nature of regional security and the critical need for diplomatic interventions to prevent further conflict escalation. As calls for restraint grow louder, the dynamics among the key players will shape the path forward in this ongoing crisis.
Original Source: www.aljazeera.com
