On 11 March 2026 two statements emerged from the international system that together reveal more about contemporary diplomacy than any solemn lecture on international law. First, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution condemning Iran for missile and drone attacks across the Gulf and for actions affecting navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. On that same day, several Muslim-majority states issued a strongly worded statement condemning Israel for restricting access to Masjid al-Aqsa, one of Islam’s most sacred sites.

Placed side by side, the two responses expose the striking inconsistency and absence of principle that now characterise much of contemporary international diplomacy. In the Security Council chamber, there were votes, urgency and a binding resolution. On the question of al-Aqsa, there was a communiqués, indignation and a carefully phrased symbolic statement. One episode produced institutional action without legal consistency. The other produced rhetorical outrage aimed at domestic Muslim audiences while ensuring that no consequential institutional action that would challenge the US would follow. Between them lies a revealing portrait of the contemporary international order and the condition of Gulf monarchies tethered to the American security umbrella.

The Security Council resolution demands that Iran immediately halt its attacks on Gulf states and emphasises the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the affected countries. The language is stern and the condemnation unequivocal.

Thirteen members voted in favour while Russia and China abstained. The difficulty with the resolution, however, is not what it says about Iran. The difficulty is what it declines to say about how the crisis began.

Thirteen members voted in favour while Russia and China abstained. The difficulty with the resolution, however, is not what it says about Iran. The difficulty is what it declines to say about how the crisis began.

The chronology is straightforward. The present confrontation did not begin with Iranian missiles. It began when the United States and Israel illegally launched a large-scale military strike inside Iranian territory. The use of force came first from Washington and Tel Aviv. Iran’s attacks across the region came later as self-defence. 

READ: US counterterrorism chief resigns over opposition to Iran war

International law, at least in theory, begins with that simple sequence. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force........

© Middle East Monitor