Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1455824879-scaled

The United Nations needs to get involved in the US-Iran standoff.

It's probably a long shot but the U.N. General Assembly could invoke what's called the "Uniting for peace" resolution to de-escalate tensions.

Analysis | Middle East

The European Union has shown that it is unable to stand up to Donald Trump's bullying and unilateralism regarding the Iran nuclear deal and requires Russian and Chinese participation in implementing the United Nations’ “Uniting for peace” resolution as a backdrop for negotiations between Iran and the U.S.

The assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani, Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force by the U.S. took the Middle East to the brink of a new war. Most analysts believe that this recent crisis and the escalation of U.S.-Iran tensions over the past year, leading to increasing insecurity in the Persian Gulf region, is the result of the U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The reinstatement of sanctions and the maximum pressure policy exercised by the U.S. after its withdrawal from the deal led Iran to begin a gradual step by step adjustment of its commitments to the JCPOA a year after the U.S. withdrawal, from May 2019.

During a trip by the EU high diplomat, Josep Borrell, to Tehran earlier this month, he said the EU did not currently intend to refer Iran’s nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council for further action. Earlier, Iran had threatened to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if it did so.

Even though the EU, China, and Russia have spent the past 21 months criticizing the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal, in practice they have been unable to create the conditions for Iran to reap its economic benefits. Banks and private businesses are unwilling to work with Iran for fear of U.S. secondary sanctions and punitive measures. As such, it seems the EU, China, and Russia should now take a step towards enforcing the U.N. “Uniting for peace” resolution.

The resolution has already been used ten times and resolves that if the Security Council fails to maintain international peace and security when one of its permanent members uses its power of veto in cases of threat against peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly will immediately consider the matter and make recommendations to its members.

Following its unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA, which is an international agreement endorsed by U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, the U.S. is presently forcing other states to abrogate the UNSC resolution while the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly verified and confirmed Iran’s compliance in numerous reports prior to U.S. withdrawal. Other issues further complicate the situation, such as Soleimani’s assassination and the unprecedented economic sanctions against Iran tantamount to an economic war without international legitimacy which has now endangered the lives of many Iranian patients who are unable to access special drugs. All these point to the need to consider the resolution on uniting for peace.

In a recent interview with Der Spiegel, Iran’s foreign minister Javad Zarif mentioned that talks with the U.S. are possible if this country lifts sanctions on Iran, to which Donald Trump tweeted: “No thanks!” Clearly, any attempts at de-escalation between the two countries at Security Council level are already doomed to failure with a U.S. veto under the circumstances. Despite its legal obligation, the U.S. has even refused to issue a visa for the Iranian foreign minister to attend the U.N. Security Council meeting after Soleimani’s assassination.

Therefore, the EU, China, and Russia should collectively begin the process of enforcing the uniting for peace resolution. The agenda of the resolution could be the lifting or temporary suspension of U.S. sanctions on Iran and the return of Iran to its commitments in the JCPOA as a backdrop for the parties to begin talks. Such a process was set in motion in 2013, when Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in return for the suspension of related sanctions which eventually led to the JCPOA.

Therefore, in the circumstances where Iran and the U.S. have shown no willingness to step back and the individual efforts of countries such as France and Japan or the European Union as a whole have failed, the U.N. General Assembly can put its best foot forward and ask both countries to lay the groundwork for negotiations.

Undoubtedly, the U.S. can also ignore a GA resolution, but the chances for success are good for two reasons. First, Trump will be facing the international community rather than just one country and Iran will return to its commitments in the JCPOA, thus reducing the perception of a retreat by Trump. And second, the probability of talks with Iran can be valuable for him in his re-election campaign.

The EU must not wait for the U.S. presidential election results. Rather, it should step up its historic role in safekeeping a significant international agreement by using the U.N. legal mechanism to set the ball rolling for talks between Iran and the U.S. and give international peace a chance.


Iran Minister for Foreign Affairs Javad Zarif meets with U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres at United Nations Headquarters. July 2019 (via Shutterstock)
Analysis | Middle East
Marco rubio state department
Top photo credit: Secretary Marco Rubio is interviewed by Lara Trump at the Department of State in Washington, D.C., July 21, 2025. (Official State Department photo by Freddie Everett)

Rubio takes annual human rights report to new heights of cynicism

Washington Politics

After much delay, Marco Rubio’s State Department finally released the 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, known internally as the Human Rights Reports (HRRs).

These congressionally mandated reports are usually published in early spring about the events of the previous year. In addition to the significant lag in their release, the 2024 reports are drastically shorter and cover a much narrower range of human rights abuses than in previous years. They no longer include prison conditions and detention centers, civil liberties violations, or rampant corruption.

keep readingShow less
Trump putin alaska
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hand with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as they meet to negotiate for an end to the war in Ukraine, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S., August 15, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

Why Trump gets it right on Ukraine peace

Europe

Most of the Western commentary on the Alaska summit is criticizing President Trump for precisely the wrong reason. The accusation is that by abandoning his call for an unconditional ceasefire as the first step in peace talks, Trump has surrendered a key position and “aligned himself with Putin.”

This is nonsense. What Trump has done is to align himself with reality, and the real charge against him is that he should probably have done this from the start, and saved six months of fruitless negotiations and thousands of Ukrainian and Russian lives. Moreover, by continually emphasising a prior ceasefire as his key goal, Trump set himself up for precisely the kind of criticism that he is now receiving.

keep readingShow less
Deal or no deal? Alaska summit ends with vague hints at something
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks on next to Russian President Vladimir Putin during a press conference following their meeting to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S., August 15, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Trump Putin

Deal or no deal? Alaska summit ends with vague hints at something

Europe

The much anticipated meeting between President Donald Trump and President Putin ended earlier than expected, but the two leaders addressed the press afterwards and appeared amicable while hinting at progress on an "agreement."

But no deal, nor a framework for a deal was announced. They did not take questions afterwards. Trump, who had said earlier that without a ceasefire at the end of the day he might slap Russia with new sanctions, did not go there. If anything they broached the issue of a second meeting. Putin even suggested it could be in Moscow.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.