UNITED NATIONS – The UN General Assembly (UNGA) convened on Thursday in a veto debate session on a draft Security Council resolution on the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, with member states divided about whether the text would have eased or deepened the crisis. UNGA President Annalena Baerbock opened the session by urging members to move beyond the council’s deadlock.
“In light of the council’s failure to support efforts leading to safe and unimpeded passage in the Strait of Hormuz, the General Assembly now has both the opportunity and the responsibility to ensure that the debate on the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz does not end with the casting of a veto,” she said.
A Convergence of Crises
Warning that the crisis was not isolated, Baerbock said, “What we are witnessing is not a single crisis, but the convergence of multiple overlapping and long-standing fault lines, which did not start on the 28th of February,” she said, pointing to tensions about Iran’s nuclear capabilities and Israeli military attacks in the region.
Russia Defends Veto
Russia’s Deputy UN envoy Anna Evstigneeva defended Moscow’s veto, arguing the draft would have been exploited to justify further military action. “It proposed that the Security Council give a green light to the use of certain protective measures under the pretext of ensuring the safety of navigation,” she said, adding that it “would have become a carte blanche for the continuation of aggressive actions and further escalation.”
She said Russia and China had put forward an alternative, balanced draft resolution to facilitate a negotiated solution. China’s UN envoy Fu Cong echoed that position, warning that the council’s actions “must not provide a veneer of legitimacy for unauthorised mandatory operations or grant a licence to the use of force.”
US Response
US envoy Mike Waltz sharply criticised the vetoes, accusing Moscow and Beijing of choosing “to shield the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.” He vowed that Washington would “continue to work so that food aid, fertiliser, energy, and commercial goods can flow, once again, through this vital waterway free from attack, threats, mining or extortion.”
EU Warning on Food Security
Stavros Lambrinidis, the head of the delegation of the EU to the UN, warned of severe global consequences, noting fertiliser prices had risen 20% to 35% in Latin America and the Caribbean, while global urea prices were up 50%, potentially driving 45 million additional people into acute hunger — a disruption he compared to Russia’s naval blockade of the Black Sea.
Iran’s Response
Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations said that Washington’s maritime blockade against Tehran represented “a clear act of aggression” under international law, while signalling cautious hope that ongoing negotiations could still yield results. Speaking at the debate, Amir Saeid Iravani defended the Chinese and Russian vetoes and charged the US with triggering the crisis through military force.
“The imposition of the maritime blockade announced by the United States constitutes a grave violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran,” Iravani said, calling it “a clear act of aggression under international law.” He argued Washington’s actions harmed third parties as well.
Iran’s Position on Navigation
Iravani stressed that Iran had acted lawfully, noting that Tehran had “implemented necessary and precautionary measures to ensure the safety and security of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz” — measures “designed to facilitate the continuous and safe passage of vessels while preventing the exploitation of this waterway for hostile or military purposes.”
Cautious Optimism on Negotiations
Despite the accusations, he pointed to the need for diplomacy and said: “Despite our deep mistrust of the United States, stemming from its repeated betrayal of diplomacy, we nevertheless entered the negotiations in good faith and remain cautiously optimistic.”
“We believe that, should the United States adopt a rational and constructive approach and refrain from advancing demands that are inconsistent with international law, these negotiations can lead to a meaningful outcome,” he added.
Objection to UNGA President’s Remarks
Iravani also pushed back against the session itself, objecting to what he called a “biased and one-sided statement” by Baerbock, accusing her of “departing from the mandate and institutional responsibilities of that office” and failing to uphold the strict impartiality required of the role. He ended by rejecting “all unfounded and politically motivated allegations” made against Iran during the meeting.
Analysis: A Deeply Divided UN
The UN General Assembly debate on the Strait of Hormuz closure revealed a deeply divided international community. The Russian and Chinese vetoes of the Security Council resolution have now been debated in the General Assembly, but the Assembly’s resolutions are non-binding.
The US and its allies argue that freedom of navigation must be restored, and that Iran’s closure of the strait is illegal. Russia and China argue that the draft resolution would have been a “carte blanche” for further military action.
Iran’s ambassador expressed “cautious optimism” about ongoing negotiations — a reminder that diplomacy continues outside the UN. Whether those negotiations succeed will determine whether the strait reopens, or whether the crisis deepens.
The EU’s warning about food security — 45 million additional people at risk of acute hunger — underscores the stakes. The Strait of Hormuz is not just about oil; it is about fertiliser, grain, and the global food supply.
As the debate concluded, the division remained. The UN could not resolve the crisis. Only the parties can.
