SATISH SHARMA - not just Rotigraphy.: Since @SecRubio is so passionately concerned with the integrity of the United Nations, it is worth reminding him of the facts and the principles upon which the Charter is founded:

Since @SecRubio
 is so passionately concerned with the integrity of the United Nations, it is worth reminding him of the facts and the principles upon which the Charter is founded:

The United States and Israel, two nuclear-armed powers, initiated an illegal armed attack on Iran in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. In self-defence, Iran responded by restricting transit through the Strait of Hormuz. 

Any UN Security Council resolution that condemns this defensive measure while ignoring the root cause would be fundamentally flawed. 

1- It would reward a blatant double standard in international law by selectively enforcing rules against the victim of aggression while granting impunity to the aggressors. The UN Charter is not a menu from which powerful states can pick and choose obligations. Ignoring the initial illegal use of force while punishing the targeted state’s response proves the Council is functioning as an instrument of selective enforcement, not universal law. 

2- Such a resolution would also reward aggression while punishing legitimate self-defence. Article 51 of the Charter expressly preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs. Iran’s action was a necessary defensive measure taken against two unhinged military powers. 

Condemning it while remaining silent on the original attack inverts the Charter: it punishes the victim, shields the aggressors, and encourages future attackers to strike first then criminalise the response. 

3- Finally, it would violate the foundational principles of the United Nations. The Charter’s Preamble and Article 1(1) require the Organisation to act “in conformity with the principles of justice and international law,” while Article 2(1) establishes the sovereign equality of all Members. 

Treating nuclear-armed attackers as above the law while censuring their victim contradicts both justice and equality. It would turn the Council from a guardian of the Charter into an enabler of power politics, eroding the UN’s legitimacy. 

In short, sponsoring or voting for this resolution would institutionalise hypocrisy, incentivise aggression, and accelerate the erosion of the post-1945 legal order.

In fact, one is left to wonder whether this outcome is intentional, as it aligns with the record of figures like Rubio, whose ideological background reflects sustained contempt for the United Nations and the legal order upheld by the Charter.

Quote

Department of State

@StateDept

SECRETARY RUBIO: We’re asking the UN to call on Iran to stop blowing up ships, remove the mines, and allow humanitarian relief.

If the international community can’t rally behind this and solve something so straightforward, then I don’t know what the utility of the UN system is.