By John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with
By an accident of the calendar, this year’s Good Friday follows just two days after April Fools’ Day.
It is no accident that the Trump Administration has put its Arab and European allies for the war against Iran on the battlefield of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in order to legalize the use of military force (more military force) in the Strait of Hormuz.
In President Donald Trump’s April 1 speech, he announced: “I have a suggestion. No. 1, buy oil from the United States of America. We have plenty. We have so much. And No. 2, build up some delayed courage. Should have done it before. Should have done it with us as we asked. Go to the strait and just take it, protect it, use it for yourselves. Iran has been essentially decimated. The hard part is done, so it should be easy. And in any event, when this conflict is over, the strait will open up naturally. It’ll just open up naturally.”
He explained what he meant by “naturally”: “we are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing.”
A few hours later, Trump celebrated with a video clip of a new US attack on the Karaj bridge near Teheran. “The biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again — Much more to follow! IT IS TIME FOR IRAN TO MAKE A DEAL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE, AND THERE IS NOTHING LEFT OF WHAT STILL COULD BECOME A GREAT COUNTRY!”
The UNSC secretariat is not publishing the text of the Hormuz Strait resolution, fronted by Bahrain, currently occupying the UNSC chairmanship, in order to implement Trump’s“suggestion No. 2” – a military operation to force the Hormuz Strait open against Iranian defence.
Following Trump’s speech, French President Emmanuel Macron went public with a direct attack on Trump’s Hormuz plan. “There are those who advocate for the liberation of the Strait of Hormuz by force through a military operation, a position sometimes expressed by the United States. I say sometimes because it has varied, it is never the option we have chosen and we consider it unrealistic. It is unrealistic because it would take an inordinate amount of time and would expose anyone crossing the strait to coastal threats from the (Iranian) Revolutionary Guards, who possess significant resources, as well as ballistic missiles, (and) a host of other risks. What we say from the beginning is that this strait must be reopened because it is strategic for energy flows, fertilisers and international trade, but that it can only be done in consultation with Iran. So, first and foremost, there must be a ceasefire and a resumption of negotiations.”
Russian representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, said Moscow supports Arab state engagement in end-of-war negotiations, but he implied Russia is not supporting the use of force. “We support the adoption by the UN Security Council of presidential statements regarding cooperation with the Arab League. We always take a constructive approach to these documents and view them as an integral part of cooperation between the Security Council and the League… What is also crucial amid the current escalation in the region, triggered by the US-Israeli aggression against Iran, is the calibrated stance of the Arab States.”
By calibrated, Nebenzya meant balanced – not unbalanced against Iran.
Russia’s deputy UN representative, Anna Evstigneva, told Chinese television on March 28 that Russia and China are together in opposing Bahraini-American proposals which are “one-sided and biased, because they put the whole blame on Iran and its strikes on Gulf countries – there are actually American military facilities there. We told them from day one that we saw the draft this way. Russia and China presented amendments to make the text balanced. But unfortunately, the penholders, as we call them in the Security Council – the authors of the text – did not take them on board. So, we had to abstain.”
She was referring to UNSC Resolution 2817 voted on March 11. Its language condemned Iran but didn’t propose to use force. The anti-Iran alliance, according to the resolution, “condemns any actions or threats by the Islamic Republic of Iran aimed at closing, obstructing, or otherwise interfering with international navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, or threatening maritime security in the Bab Al Mandab.”
Will Russia and China abstain or veto the new UNSC resolution, and what exactly do the words say and mean?
Listen or view the Red Pill Diaries podcast answering these questions, hosted by Rasheed Muhammad early on Friday morning, Moscow time.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/live/KE3IGMaSqQw
Together, China and Russia have counter-attacked, first by breaking the silence rule to make public their opposition to any mandate for force against Iran in the Persian Gulf; then by threatening to veto the Arab resolution in whatever final form it comes to a vote on Good Friday morning in New York. Click to a non-official summary of the negotiations until now. The UNSC secretariat has not published the exact language of the resolution which will go to the vote.
Reuters has reported the draft it has seen authorized “all defensive means necessary” to protect commercial shipping. That’s diplo speak for force.
The language was apparently changed in a later draft. According to the semi-official Egyptian paper Al-Ahram, the wording has been amended to “all necessary means commensurate with the circumstances”. The Russians, Chinese and French are saying that the revised phrase means what they say it means, not what Trump, the Arabs and the British say it means to them.
In Moscow during Thursday, senior Russian officials discussed with the Arab states and with Abbas Araghchi, the Foreign Minister of Iran, how to fight the battle of the UNSC. President Vladimir Putin told the Egyptian foreign minister: “as you know, President Trump also addressed this issue yesterday [April 1]. Let me reiterate that we are prepared to make every effort to help stabilise the situation and, as they say in such cases, return it to normal.” Two hours later he told Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), the Saudi ruler, the two of them should agree on “the need for ceasing the hostilities as soon as possible and intensifying political and diplomatic efforts aimed at finding a long-term resolution to the conflict that respects the legitimate interests of all parties.”
That means no UNSC resolution, no UN mandate for force against Iran.
At the same time, MbS authorized a leak to the Financial Times in London indicating “utter sense of disappointment with the White House…[the Saudis are] massively frustrated at Trump’s independent actions, his unwillingness to think through the consequences…” This is camouflage and alibi for the Saudi role in promoting the Bahrain resolution and the anti-Iran statements of the Arab League and Gulf Cooperation Council in the UNSC meetings.
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking by telephone with Araghchi, “exchanged views on the progress of discussions in the UN Security Council on ways to ensure the safety of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and overcoming other consequences of unprovoked US and Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Gyorgy Borisenko, a deputy foreign minister, then told his Saudi counterpart, also by telephone, “in order to end the war going there, which is affected by the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf and is under threat, it is urgently required to stop the unprovoked aggression of the United States and Israel against Iran.”
Russia’s official signals have been more explicitly on Iran’s side than China’s — until now. The violence of Trump’s April 1 speech appears to have sharpened China’s public position.
Left, Spokesman Mao Ning at the Foreign Ministry in Beijing; right, Ambassador Fu Cong at the UN in New York
On April 2, the Foreign Ministry spokesman in Beijing was asked to respond to Trump’s proposal for the use of force to open the Hormuz Strait. Mao Ning replied: “The root cause of the disruption at the Strait of Hormuz is the U.S.-Israel illegal military operations against Iran. Only by ending the military actions and restoring peace and stability in the Gulf can the international shipping lane be open and safe. The international community needs to work together for deescalation to prevent regional turmoil from further hitting the global economy and energy security… The Strait of Hormuz and its adjacent waters form an important international trade route for goods and energy. All eyes are on whether stability can return to the Strait and whether traffic will resume soon. The key lies in the stop of military actions.”
The spokesman also commented on Trump’s speech: “Military means do not address the fundamental issue. To escalate the conflict does not serve any party’s interest. Once again we urge parties to the conflict to immediately stop military operations and start peace talks as soon as possible to resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation and prevent more serious blows to the world economy and global energy security.”
At the UNSC in New York, China’s representative Fu Cong declared opposition to the use of force. “[This would be] legitimizing the unlawful and indiscriminate use of force, which would inevitably lead to further escalation of the situation and lead to serious consequences.”
The UNSC vote on the Bahrain resolution is scheduled to start at 10 am, New York Time, on Friday. Click to watch the livestream. https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k18/k18m1j7dgd
Leave a Reply