On March 11th the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on the war against Iran. Of the SC members two abstained (Russia and China) and the rest, including Colombia, voted in favour. Russia put forward its own resolution rejected by a majority of the countries, with just four votes in favour.[1]
The resolution adopted is an initiative of Bahrein, a key US proxy, and calls upon Iran to not take action against the states in the region. It says:
1. Reiterates its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan.
2. Condemns in the strongest terms the egregious attacks by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the territories of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan and determines that such acts constitute a breach of international law and a serious threat to international peace and security.[2]
According to the Resolution Iran doesn’t have the right to sovereignty, nor territorial integrity and less still the right not to be attacked. It does not mention the US and Israeli aggression that began the war, in itself a clear violation of the UN Charter whose Article 2.24 reads:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.[3]
Of course it is not the first nor unfortunately will it be the last time that Israel and the US violate the Charter, but the brazenness of the UN members demanding that the country under attack not respond and blaming it for all that has occurred is perhaps new. Prior to the resolution various European countries criticised Iran harshly and demanded that it cease its attack. What they argue is that Kuwait, the UAE and the rest are not taking part in the conflict and thus are neutral and enjoy protection under the Charter which is not applied to Iran, of course. But it is not the case.
The US has bases in all of the states in the region except Iran, of course. For example, Bahrein is the location of the Headquarters of the Fifth Fleet of the US Navy. What do the toadies at the UN want? That Iran not attack the Fleet that attacks it, it would seem. The US military base is still in Bahrein for one reason only, the monarchic leadership violently put down the protests and uprising of 2011.
And what about the other states? Well, they just like Bahrein have US military bases and other necessary installations such as radar etc. In a war between countries, all military installations (with the exception of military hospitals) are a legitimate target, wherever they are. None of the Gulf monarchies can claim they are not part of the conflict. They supply the required aid without which the war would not continue, or at least would not continue in the same way. Their participation and role is not incidental or minor.
Before the war the US had around 40,000 troops in the region in all, and about 19 bases, eight of which were permanent. The “host” countries of these bases are Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Qatar, UAE, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Oman, Syria, Turkey and of course Israel. Furthermore, it has bases in Cyprus and Greece. As the joke goes, what was Iran thinking when it put its country in the middle of all those Yankee bases?
Faced with this panorama of a ring round Iran, Colombia decided to betray the country and demand that it not defend itself and get down on its knees to the Yanks and voted in favour of the resolution. We don’t know why. Maybe when Petro bent over to Trump in his visit to Washington part of the accord was that Colombia would vote favourably on US initiatives and lend political support to its imperialist adventures. Gone is the pomp of his speech to the UN criticising the genocide in Gaza stating there is only one human race and no chosen people of god. It would seem that Iran is not part of that human race and if there is no chosen people of god as such, it is clear that according to the Colombian government there is one that is definitely not.
They have little or nothing to say in the UN of the other violations of its Charter and also International Humanitarian Law such as the attacks on hospitals and schools. Of course I am not referring to the hospitals in the USA where the poor can’t get treated because they have no money, but rather the hospitals and schools in Iran bombed by the US and Israel.
In international law Iran has a right to attack all the bases and military installations of its enemies in war i.e. the USA and Israel. Moreover, it has the right to attack any installation or body that provides a significant service to the war effort, regardless of where it is. If the banks in Dubai meet that requirement or not, we can discuss, and if bank branches also meets the requirements can also be discussed, but that debate is for everyone. The USA has attacked banks and their branches in the Iran. Are the Arab banks an important part of the war? To argue that it is not the case is not easy, but perhaps. So, why does the USA attack banks in Iran which due to the sanctions do not have the same access to the international financial markets like the UAE. We are not comparing like with like. It is like comparing the Chase Manhattan to a local credit union.
Petro’s legacy will not be his speeches to the UN but rather his support for unjustified attacks against Iran and his submission to the USA.
References
[1] See Press Release Security Council Adopts Resolution 2817 (2026) Condemning Iran’s ‘Egregious Attacks’ against Neighbours as Middle East Violence Rapidly Escalates.
[2] See Resolution 2817 (2026)
[3] See.
[1] See Press Release Security Council Adopts Resolution 2817 (2026) Condemning Iran’s ‘Egregious Attacks’ against Neighbours as Middle East Violence Rapidly Escalates.
[2] See Resolution 2817 (2026)
[3] See.
⏩ Gearóid Ó Loingsigh is a political and human rights activist with extensive experience in Latin America.
No comments