Explanation of vote by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia after the UNSC Vote on a Draft Resolution on Maritime Security in the Middle East
Mr. President,
The Russian Federation voted against the draft resolution tabled by Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia regarding the situation in the Strait of Hormuz and the adjacent waters.
Our country’s position on the current crisis in the Middle East is principled, consistent, and objective in nature. We condemn the aggression by the United States and Israel against Iran. We respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries in the region – both of the Islamic Republic of Iran and that of other Gulf States. We view attacks targeting their civilians and civilian infrastructure as unacceptable. Russia has always made every effort, including at the highest level, to put an end to such actions, and we will continue in the same vein. We are striving for the prompt establishment of peace in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East.
However, the Russian Federation was not able to support a text that would set a dangerous precedent for international law and international maritime law, which is liable to undermine any peace efforts and the credibility of the UN Security Council.
Back when negotiating Security Council Resolution 2817, we urged all our Council colleagues to adopt a balanced and objective approach. The UN Secretary-General, too, repeatedly sent similar, equidistant messages, calling on the United States and Israel to halt the war and on Iran to cease attacks targeting its neighbors. It is impossible and unacceptable to overlook the root causes of the crisis in the Middle East, namely the unlawful and reckless actions of the United States and Israel against Iran. Neither Russia nor Mr. Guterres was heeded back then. Nevertheless, we understand the situation of the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Jordan, and, therefore, we abstained during the vote on Resolution 2817. That was not an easy decision for us to take.
However, this time our Bahraini partners and their likeminded allies went much further, taking a fundamentally erroneous and dangerous approach to the situation in the region. In essence, virtually every paragraph of the proposed draft abounded with unbalanced, inaccurate, and confrontational elements. I’m going to point only to the main points.
In paragraph 1 of the preamble and paragraph 6 of the operative part, Iran’s actions were presented as the sole source of so-called “destabilizing activities and regional tensions.” And there was not a single word about the true causes of the current crisis in the Middle East, which are actually the unlawful strikes by the US and Israel targeting Iranian territory. And this despite the fact that in paragraph 3 of the preamble, the sponsors themselves highlighted that threats to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz have been observed precisely since February 28, 2026. This, incidentally, flew in the face of their own assertions that the current initiative was designed as a response to certain “decades of threats” to freedom of navigation allegedly emanating from Iran.
In paragraph 6 of the preamble, attempts to interfere with international navigation through the Strait of Hormuz were unequivocally portrayed as a threat to international peace and security. And it was deliberately overlooked that a significant portion of the Strait of Hormuz is within Iran’s territorial waters.
In paragraph 7 of the preamble, threats to merchant and commercial vessels and interference with freedom of navigation were identified as the sole reason for disruption of global energy supplies. Once again, without noting the root causes of the crisis, which the US president himself frankly mentioned when publicly acknowledging that the end of hostilities would result in the opening of the Strait of Hormuz.
In paragraph 9 of the preamble, as well as in paragraphs 1 and 4 of the operative part, there were references to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. This international legal instrument does not apply to situations of armed conflict, which we have repeatedly voiced during the negotiation process.
Paragraph 10 of the preamble alleged that it is Iran that constitutes a threat to international peace and security in the context of the current crisis. The decision to delete references to Chapter VII from this paragraph was not a “panacea” – in essence, such language can in any event be interpreted by bad-faith States as legitimizing the use of force.
Paragraph 2 of the operative part speaks for itself. It proposed that the Security Council give the “green light” to the implementation of certain “defensive” measures – the scope of which is unclear to us – under the pretext of ensuring the safety and security of navigation, without any regard for the sovereignty of littoral States. The reservations regarding the purely defensive nature of these efforts do not change the essence of the matter. Especially given that the sponsors themselves indicated that they were referring precisely to the use of force: this was clearly stated in the language of paragraph 3 of the operative part, which emphasized that States acting according to paragraph 2 must fully comply with international humanitarian law.
Paragraph 7 of the operative part specified that the UN Security Council would be prepared to consider “further measures” against those who undermine navigational rights and freedoms. This is an obvious hint at potential sanctions pressure – regardless of whether it was explicitly stated or not.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 concerned not only the Strait of Hormuz but also the Bab al-Mandab Strait. In other words, the sponsors deliberately expanded the geographical scope of their draft, thereby giving more grounds for expansive interpretations thereof.
Let us turn to paragraph 9 of the operative part. Despite sending a correct message – a call for diplomacy – it only referred to the cessation of hostilities in the Persian and Omani Gulf regions, as well as in the Strait of Hormuz. But as for the need to halt the US-Israeli aggression, this was entirely swept under the rug.
Mr. President,
The bottom line here is that, even though the authors tried to cloak the draft in generalized wordings, the gist remained unchanged: the draft was designed to grant carte blanche for the continued aggressive acts and further escalation. We understand what this would mean from a legal standpoint, as well as in terms of the implications “on the ground.” Even more so when we hear statements from the US President about his readiness to “destroy” Iran if the Strait of Hormuz is not opened.
It behooves us to remind the Council members about the distorted Security Council Resolution 1973 on Libya, adopted in 2011, and about what the loose and expansive interpretation thereof resulted in. The limit of trust in States that advanced the use of force hiding behind noble pretexts and vague language was exhausted back then.
We have already witnessed how the United States attempted to justify its strikes against Iran by invoking the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, interpreting it as having preemptive implications. For all our solidarity with the Arab countries, who were set up by Washington and victimized by the tragedy in the region, we cannot but stress that any attempt to impose such “rules of the game” in the Strait of Hormuz would only play into the hands of those who wish to further undermine security and stability in the Middle East and beyond.
Measures to protect vessels, like any other property of UN member States, do not require Security Council resolutions; it would suffice to have a reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter, which grants the right to self-defense virtually under any circumstances. The expansion of operations for security purposes without the consent of the littoral States is another reason why we were unable to support the Bahraini draft resolution.
Colleagues,
Adopting such a document disregarding the broader context of the situation would further antagonize Iran, which is already enduring daily strikes by the United States and Israel. A vast number of civilians are being killed on Iranian soil. Nearly two thousand civilians have already died, a quarter of whom are women and children. Among those killed are also the Supreme Leader and many other representatives of the country’s leadership. Civilian infrastructure – schools, hospitals, universities, energy and nuclear facilities, including the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant – is being attacked, which is fraught with catastrophic humanitarian repercussions for Iran and the entire region. We wish to emphasize that not a single passage was produced by the Security Council to assess these violations of international law. And you will hear no excuses from us today, Ambassador Waltz.
I will not dwell in detail on the glaring double standards pertinent to this approach. However, all this is completely illogical even from the standpoint of basic pragmatism. Adopting such a one-sided resolution would jeopardize any prospects for resuming the negotiation process to resolve the crisis, and would also obstruct the important and useful peace initiatives that are currently being undertaken by a number of States, including China, Pakistan, and Turkey. If the Security Council were to adopt the position being imposed on it, there would be absolutely no motivation for Tehran to engage in any form of contact with Washington, which has already twice betrayed diplomacy – in June 2025 and this past February – and began launching massive strikes against Iran at the very height of the negotiation process.
Mr. President,
From the very start of work on this document, we and our Chinese colleagues have conveyed our most serious concerns regarding this initiative to the Bahraini authors and other members. We saw no room for amending the text, so we urged our Arab friends to refrain from advancing it. However, our concerns were not heeded, and the draft was put to a vote. Under these circumstances, we had no choice but to vote against it.
Russia consistently champions ensuring comprehensive security for maritime navigation in all international waterways, opening corridors for Venezuela and Cuba, and ceasing attacks targeting merchant and commercial vessels of any country. Similarly, we advocate unhampered navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. However, this task can only be accomplished with the participation of all littoral States bordering this vital transport corridor. It is not possible to do that without Iran. We call on our Arab and Iranian friends to address the issue of navigation right away. We stand ready to facilitate such contacts.
Mr. President,
We understand the concerns of our Arab partners regarding freedom of navigation; therefore, we, along with China, propose that the Security Council consider an alternative draft resolution on the current situation in the Middle East, including in terms of maritime security. We are confident that providing for genuine freedom of navigation in the Strait, which is of critical importance for the countries of the region and the entire world, can only be achieved through ceasing hostilities and achieving a negotiated solution. Our draft will be concise, impartial and balanced, and in line with the principles of international law and the UN Charter, specifically when it comes to the peaceful settlement of disputes. In this connection, we are immediately submitting this draft in blue. We will provide further information regarding our voting plans shortly. We count on the support of the entire membership of the Security Council.
Thank you.
