At a time when the US Treasury secretary has repeatedly spoken of building global consensus against Iran, Russia and China blocked the adoption of a Washington-proposed draft resolution concerning the extension of the mandate of the panel of experts supporting the Security Council’s 1737 Committee. Despite receiving 11 votes in favor, the draft failed to pass because of opposition from two permanent council members and their use of veto power.
This development goes beyond a temporary diplomatic setback; it signals the limitations of US capabilities to shape international consensus against Iran. Moscow and Beijing’s support, alongside developments on the ground and in diplomacy, once again underscored the importance of the interplay between unity on the battlefield, diplomacy and popular participation. This capacity has challenged the dynamics of pressure against Iran.
International Law: A Victim of West’s Political Interpretations
US and European troika actions against Iran, pursued through concepts such as snapback, the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions, the return of inspectors and decisions by the Board of Governors, are taking place as Tehran continues to stress that Resolution 2231 expired in October 2025. From this perspective, Iran considers the new measures against it to lack a legal basis and regards the issuance of new resolutions as a violation of international commitments.
The issue is not limited to the dispute between Iran and the West; it also concerns the political use of international institutions and its dangerous implications for the global legal order. If military aggression, attacks on nuclear facilities and unlawful actions are justified through international political mechanisms, the principle of state sovereignty and the credibility of international legal rules will be undermined. Countering such a trend is essential for all countries that defend the independence of international institutions.
Battlefield, Diplomacy and the Streets: Three Pillars of National Power
China and Russia’s vetoes can be regarded as another achievement stemming from the synergy between developments on the ground, diplomacy and the steadfastness of the Iranian people during 200 nights of street presence. Iran’s resistance against the US-Israeli adversary has created a capacity extending beyond national borders, while Tehran’s multilayered and rapid diplomatic efforts have helped various countries gain a more accurate understanding of regional conditions and Iran’s positions.
Iran’s active participation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS, alongside its articulation of the dimensions of US and Israeli regime actions against international law and the global order, together with popular participation, has helped strengthen the country’s diplomatic position. This connection between social support, capabilities on the ground and diplomatic activity has created conditions for greater convergence between some global powers and Iran, with its impact becoming evident at the Security Council.
Within this framework, Trump's claim that he is restoring America’s global standing remains distant from emerging realities in the international system. Countries’ refusal to support warmongering against Iran, Washington’s inability to secure a final communiqué at the G20 finance ministers’ meeting, and the emphasis placed by Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS meetings on a new global order are signs of the constraints facing US hegemonic unilateralism.
Collapse of Promise-Based Rhetoric: Hormuz Will Not Reopen Under Pressure
While Trump continues to speak of an imminent end to the war with Iran and Tehran’s alleged request for negotiations, Washington’s efforts to manage energy markets and project victory face serious challenges. Statements by US officials about the consequences of withdrawing from the war, the status of oil shipments through the Persian Gulf and developments in energy markets, alongside the Pentagon’s military claims, form part of an effort to control the crisis’s economic and political repercussions.
A Brown University report has cited an additional cost of approximately $107bn for American consumers in gasoline and diesel expenses resulting from supply disruptions linked to the conflict with Iran and the Russia-Ukraine war. The Federal Reserve’s 25-basis-point increase in its benchmark interest rate, bringing it to a range of 3.75% to 4%, is also presented in the account as a sign of concern over persistent inflation. Meanwhile, a Marquette University poll put Trump’s approval rating at 37% ahead of the midterm elections.
Under these circumstances, the new sanctions against Iran are viewed less as evidence of an effective pressure policy than as an effort to restore Washington’s economic and political credibility. However, none of the US military actions, political meetings or diplomatic pressure has managed to resolve the issue of the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran maintains that threats and pressure are not the way to reopen the strait and that, until its conditions are met, it will respond swiftly and forcefully to any aggression. Continuing along this path, rather than resolving the crisis, could further complicate its security and economic consequences for the US and its allies.
NOURNEWS