March 11, 2026: the day the UN died. Much devastation will be left in the wake of the war on Iran. One of the most serious losses will be the loss of credibility suffered by the United Nations.
On March 1, a massive attack was launched on Iran in violation of UN Charter Article 2.3 that demands that member states “settle their international disputes by peaceful means” and Article 2.4 that requires all members to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” This norm has no exemptions and cannot be modified, including, according to the International Court of Justice, in self-defense. The war on Iran was legitimized neither by Security Council authorization nor by an immediate need for self-defense. Iran responded, in part, by targeting neighboring countries that hosted U.S. bases.
On March 11, the Security Council responded by condemning the latter, but not the former. The Security Council adopted resolution 2817, which “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.” Thirteen members of the Security Council voted in favor, and none voted against. China and Russia abstained.
Voting a second time on the same day, the Security Council rejected a Russian draft resolution that called for an end to the fighting, an end to strikes on civilians and civilian infrastructure, and a return to negotiations. The draft resolution referred to “all parties” while naming none in an effort to ensure adoption by not blaming any country. Russia was joined by China, Pakistan, and Somalia in voting in favor, while the U.S. and Latvia voted against. The other nine members abstained.
The first resolution condemned Iran. The second refused to condemn both parties. Condemning Iran but not condemning both can mean nothing other than not condemning the United States. There is no other possible logical interpretation other than that the Security Council condemned Iran for its retaliatory strikes while approving of the American strikes that Iran was retaliating against. Both are wrong. But the Security Council condemned the nation defending itself while approving of the country that illegally attacked it.
With that pair of votes, the Security Council lost its credibility as the forum where international law is defended and enforced. America’s ambassador to the UN, Mike Waltz, declared that “this is exactly what the United Nations should be about.” If that’s true, then the UN was designed to lack credibility.
The resolution that condemned Iran “[f]urther condemns that residential areas were attacked, that civilian objects have been targeted and that the attacks resulted in civilian casualties and damage of civilian buildings.”
But Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, says that the countries Iran is retaliating against are “countries that have given their soil to American forces to attack us.” He claims that Iran is “only targeting American assets, American installations and American military bases.” And these countries may not just be passively hosting U.S. bases that are staying out of the war.
The Gulf states assured Iran that they would not allow the U.S. to use their territory or airspace in its war on Iran. But the three U.S. fighter jets that were shot down were in Kuwaiti airspace when they were hit. And the refueling aircraft that crashed, killing all six crew members, was in Iraqi airspace.
Jennifer Kavanagh, Senior Fellow & Director of Military Analysis at Defense Priorities, told me that “official US Army accounts provide clear evidence that the US has launched PRSM missiles from HIMARS in either Kuwait or Bahrain.” She also pointed out that “there are still thousands of troops at US bases across the region. They are, of course, providing logistics, intelligence, and other support to U.S. forces.”
On March 7, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said that Iran would cease targeting neighboring countries “unless an attack originated from there.” But U.S. President Donald Trump exploded that pathway to de-escalation by claiming that, with this act of diplomacy, Iran “surrendered to its Middle East neighbors,” promising that the U.S. will expand its targets and threatening Iran with “complete destruction and certain death.”
The condemnation of Iran for hitting civilian targets again demonstrated the Security Council’s inability to eschew double standards. The U.S. has assassinated leaders and killed school children. It has bombed parks, stadiums, hospitals, radio stations, water desalination facilities, heritage sites, and oil facilities and gas fields.
So far, over 1,400 civilians have been killed in Iran. 43,000 civilian units, including 36,500 residential units, have been hit. 43 emergency units and 120 schools have been bombed. UNESCO has verified damage to several world heritage sites, which is a violation of international law. Iran says “at least 56 museums, historical monuments and cultural sites… have been damaged.”
The Security Council resolution determined that Iran’s attacks on its neighbors “constitute a breach of international law.” Fair enough. But the attack on Iran without Security Council authorization is the biggest breach of international law of them all.
Not only the war, but the manner in which it has been prosecuted, is in breach of international law. At a March 2 press conference, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that the U.S. is waging a war “[a]ll on our terms with maximum authorities. No stupid rules of engagement…. no politically correct wars.”
Two days later, he said, “Our rules of engagement are… designed to unleash American power, not shackle it.” And the next day, he explained that “we have no shortage of authorities…. we have clear objectives with maximum authorities on the battlefield. The dumb, politically correct wars of the past were the opposite of what we’re doing here. They had vague objectives with restrictive, minimalist rules of engagement. No more.”
On March 13, Hegseth told another press briefing that the U.S. military would keep advancing with “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” No quarter means that Iranian soldiers who surrender will be killed rather than taken as prisoners of war: Hegseth’s statement is itself a war crime, and the Pentagon’s law of war manual defines his statement as such. The International Committee of the Red Cross states that directions to give no quarter is a war crime and that such declarations are prohibited “in the Lieber Code, the Brussels Declaration and the Oxford Manual and codified in the Hague Regulations.”
On March 11, the Security Council condemned Iran for retaliatory strikes but refused to condemn the United States for its strikes, which were an act of aggression. It condemned Iran for bombing civilian sites, but refused to condemn the United States for its extensive bombing of civilian sites. And it condemned Iran for being in breach of international law, but refused to condemn the United States and its explicit statements of intent to breach international law. Much damage has been done in the war on Iran. Among the wreckage lies the United Nations: on that day, the UN’s credibility died.
