The Iranian official shared his statement through a social media post on Monday night. First, he accused the United States and its regional partners of shifting the narrative. Similarly, Gharibabadi stated that the draft resolution ignores the consequences of military aggression. He also highlighted the impact of what he called an illegal naval siege. Moreover, Iran views itself as a victim of constant threats and direct physical attacks. For instance, the minister emphasized that freedom of navigation is a respected legal principle. However, he argued that Western powers selectively interpret this principle.
Gharibabadi noted that legal principles must align with the United Nations Charter. In addition, he stressed that genuine maritime initiatives cannot ignore the frequent use of force. The diplomat specifically pointed to the roles of the United States and Israel. Because of this, he claimed these nations are responsible for the current regional crisis. They pretend to act with neutrality despite their active military involvement. In Tehran, strait maritime security cannot exist without addressing these underlying causes. Indeed, the core problem involves governments reframing their illegal actions as international order.
The Deputy Foreign Minister warned that this approach will not lead to de-escalation. Instead, he believes the draft resolution undermines the credibility of various multilateral mechanisms. Any text that ignores Iran’s right to defend its interests is fundamentally flawed. As a result, Gharibabadi predicted the American diplomatic effort would fail from the very beginning. These remarks follow several closed-door meetings held by Washington last week. Specifically, American officials met with various Persian Gulf states to promote their specific text.
The proposed American resolution demands that Iran stop all maritime attacks immediately. It also threatens Tehran with a new wave of international sanctions. Most significantly, the text includes the possible authorization of military force. In contrast, Iran maintains that its actions in the waterway are purely defensive. Officials describe their maneuvers as responses to long-term American and Israeli provocations. For example, they cite crippling economic sanctions as a primary driver of regional tension. Iran believes strait maritime security is actually threatened by the American military presence.
This dispute carries heavy weight for the global energy market and trade. For instance, the Strait of Hormuz serves as the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint. Roughly one-fifth of the global petroleum liquid consumption passes through this narrow passage. Thus, any increase in tension often causes immediate spikes in global oil prices. International shipping companies remain on high alert due to these political developments. Accordingly, they must navigate both physical risks and complex international legal frameworks.
The future of the resolution remains uncertain as Security Council members deliberate. Meanwhile, Russia and China often use their veto power to block American initiatives. This geopolitical divide makes the passage of the resolution a difficult task. Simultaneously, the United States continues to build a maritime coalition in the region. This coalition seeks to protect commercial vessels from potential interference or seizure. Nevertheless, both sides seem far from a diplomatic compromise at this stage.
Industry experts watch the situation closely for any signs of physical escalation. Certainly, a military confrontation would disrupt supply chains across the entire globe. Iran insists it will continue to protect its vital national security interests. On the other hand, Washington maintains that it will keep sea lanes open. This stalemate ensures that the Persian Gulf remains a primary focus of global diplomacy. Finally, the coming weeks will determine if the Security Council takes formal action.