On 28 February 2026 the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran. Iran responded with attacks on Israel, on US bases in the Gulf and on Gulf states, and moved to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for world oil supplies. The UK did not take part in the first strikes, but agreed that the US could use British bases for what the government called limited defensive operations.
The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2817 on 11 March condemning Iran’s attacks on its neighbours, with China and Russia abstaining. On 7 April China and Russia vetoed a further draft on shipping in the strait, arguing that it ignored the US and Israeli strikes. A ceasefire in April and a US–Iran memorandum in June were followed by renewed fighting from late June. By November 2026, talks through mediators were continuing, but the strait remained largely closed.
The Council could act when the permanent members did not block it: Resolution 2817 passed because China and Russia abstained rather than voting against. But on the strait itself, which the US and Gulf states treated as the most urgent issue, China and Russia used the veto, as they did again in September on an Iran sanctions panel. The result shows how far the Council depends on agreement, or at least restraint, among its five permanent members.
The main steps towards ending the fighting, the April ceasefire and the June memorandum, were negotiated outside the Council, through states such as Pakistan and Qatar, with the UN welcoming and supporting them. The war is a test of how far global governance can resolve a conflict in which a permanent member is a party, and of whether realist or liberal ideas better explain the behaviour of the states involved.
China and Russia argued that the drafts treated Iran as the only source of tension and did not mention the US and Israeli strikes, which China said had no Council authorisation. On this view, the veto prevented an unbalanced text rather than blocking a solution.
Liberals can point out that Resolution 2817 passed with no votes against and nearly 140 co-sponsors, and that after each veto the General Assembly’s veto initiative required a public debate. The UN system therefore registered broad international opinion even when the Council was divided.
The April ceasefire and the June memorandum came from mediation by states such as Pakistan and Qatar, which the Secretary-General welcomed. Some argue that the UN’s role in such conflicts is to support negotiations rather than to impose a settlement.
The war was continuing at the last check. Many details of the fighting and talks come from news reports rather than official records, and sources differ on some dates, such as when the June memorandum broke down.
At the last check (8 November 2026), indirect US–Iran talks through Qatari mediators were continuing without a deal. Iran said the Strait of Hormuz would stay closed until its conditions were met, the US naval blockade of Iranian ports remained in place, and the US carried out limited strikes on 2 November.
A current case of the Security Council both acting and being blocked by the veto over a war involving a permanent member, with a direct UK angle through the use of British bases.
Signed off for students.
Origin: Human-written · Reviewer: Editor
Every fact on this page has been checked against original sources.