Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Iran Minister for Foreign Affairs Javad Zarif meets with U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres at United Nations Headquarters. July 2019 (via Shutterstock)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Gaza tent city
Top photo credit: Palestinian Mohammed Abu Halima, 43, sits in front of his tent with his children in a camp for displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, Gaza, on December 11, 2025. Matrix Images / Mohammed Qita

Four major dynamics in Gaza War that will impact 2026

Middle East

Just ahead of the New Year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit President Donald Trump in Florida today, no doubt with a wish list for 2026. Already there have been reports that he will ask Trump to help attack Iran’s nuclear program, again.

Meanwhile, despite the media narrative, the war in Gaza is not over, and more specifically, it has not ended in a clear victory for Netanyahu’s IDF forces. Nor has the New Year brought solace to the Palestinians — at least 71,000 have been killed since October 2023. But there have been a number of important dynamics and developments in 2025 that will affect not only Netanyahu’s “asks” but the future of security in Israel and the region.

keep readingShow less
Sokoto Nigeria
Top photo credit: Map of Nigeria (Shutterstock/Juan Alejandro Bernal)

Trump's Christmas Day strikes on Nigeria beg question: Why Sokoto?

Africa

For the first time since President Trump publicly excoriated Nigeria’s government for allegedly condoning a Christian genocide, Washington made good on its threat of military action on Christmas Day when U.S. forces conducted airstrikes against two alleged major positions of the Islamic State (IS-Sahel) in northwestern Sokoto state.

According to several sources familiar with the operation, the airstrike involved at least 16 GPS-guided munitions launched from the Navy destroyer, USS Paul Ignatius, stationed in the Gulf of Guinea. Debris from unexpended munition consistent with Tomahawk cruise missile components have been recovered in the village of Jabo, Sokoto state, as well nearly 600 miles away in Offa in Kwara state.

keep readingShow less
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.