[Prompt]
Manual script episode

[Response]
Corn: The nine thousand, five hundred and thirty-seventh meeting of the United Nations Security Council is called to order. This emergency session has been convened at the request of the delegations of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, under the agenda item, Threats to International Peace and Security. The situation in the Middle East following the military operations of the twenty-eighth of February, two thousand and twenty-six. I shall now brief the Council on the situation before us.

Corn: In the early hours of February twenty-eighth, the armed forces of the United States and Israel launched what has been described as a coordinated campaign of airstrikes across the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Approximately nine hundred strikes were conducted within a twelve-hour period, targeting nuclear facilities, military installations, air defense systems, and command structures. Iranian state media confirmed on March first the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the defense minister, and senior intelligence officials. In the hours that followed, Iran launched retaliatory missile and drone strikes against Israeli territory, United States military installations in the Gulf region, and the sovereign territories of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. Iran has also moved to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately twenty percent of the world's oil supply transits daily. The Secretary-General has called on all parties to exercise maximum restraint and return to the path of diplomacy. I will now open the floor for statements from Council members. The representative of the United States has the floor.

Herman: Thank you, Mister President. The United States comes before this Council not to apologize, but to explain. For more than four decades, the Iranian regime pursued a nuclear weapons capability in defiance of this body's resolutions, in defiance of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in defiance of basic norms of international conduct. Let us be clear about the timeline. In two thousand and fifteen, the international community offered Iran a diplomatic off-ramp through the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Iran's compliance was partial at best and deteriorated rapidly after two thousand and eighteen. By two thousand and twenty-five, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iran had enriched uranium to ninety percent purity, weapons-grade material, at levels far beyond any plausible civilian justification.

Herman: The United States invoked its inherent right of self-defense under Article fifty-one of the United Nations Charter. This was not aggression. This was the elimination of an existential threat after decades of failed diplomacy, violated agreements, and systematic deception of international inspectors. We acted to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran from holding the entire Middle East hostage. We acted because this Council, frankly, could not. Resolution after resolution, sanction after sanction, and still Iran enriched, still Iran armed proxies from Lebanon to Yemen to Iraq, still Iran threatened the destruction of a fellow United Nations member state. What were we supposed to do? Wait for a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv?

Herman: Now. Regarding the retaliatory strikes by Iran against Gulf states, against civilian infrastructure, against a residential high-rise building in Saudi Arabia, let me say this plainly. These attacks against sovereign nations that had nothing to do with the military operation are indefensible. They are war crimes. And this Council must condemn them unequivocally. The United States supports the draft resolution put forward by Bahrain on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council. We call on all members to vote in favor. Thank you.

Corn: I thank the representative of the United States. I now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation.

Raz: Thank you, Mister President. We have just heard the representative of the United States describe nearly nine hundred airstrikes against a sovereign nation, the targeted assassination of its head of state, and the systematic destruction of its military and civilian infrastructure as, and I quote, self-defense. One wonders what the United States would consider aggression.

Raz: Let us state what is obvious to the rest of the world, even if it is inconvenient in Washington. What occurred on February twenty-eighth was an unprovoked act of military aggression in violation of the United Nations Charter. There was no armed attack against the United States or Israel that triggered a right of self-defense under Article fifty-one. There was no Security Council authorization under Chapter Seven. There was, in fact, a diplomatic process underway. The Omani foreign minister confirmed on February twenty-seventh, one day before the strikes, that a breakthrough had been reached. Iran had agreed to halt enrichment stockpiling and accept full I.A.E.A. verification. One day. One day before bombs fell on Tehran, diplomacy was working. And it was destroyed, deliberately, by those who never wanted it to succeed.

Raz: Russia condemns these strikes in the strongest possible terms. We also condemn the Iranian retaliatory strikes against Gulf states and civilian infrastructure. No amount of provocation justifies attacks on countries that were not party to the aggression. But this Council cannot, must not, address the retaliation without addressing its cause. Russia has introduced a draft resolution calling for an immediate cessation of all military operations by all parties, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz under international supervision, and the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the legality of the initial strikes. We urge all members to support it.

Corn: I thank the representative of the Russian Federation. The representative of the People's Republic of China has the floor.

Jacob: Thank you, Mister President. China views the events of recent days with the gravest concern. We are witnessing a catastrophic failure of the international order that this Council was established to uphold. The military operation conducted by the United States and Israel against Iran, without Security Council authorization, without an imminent armed attack to justify self-defense, represents a dangerous precedent. If any state may unilaterally decide that another state's military capabilities constitute a threat and launch a preemptive war of this magnitude, then the entire architecture of collective security is rendered meaningless.

Jacob: China opposed Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. We supported sanctions under Resolution two thousand two hundred and thirty-one. We participated in the P five plus one negotiations. But we also consistently maintained that the dispute must be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy, not through force. The I.A.E.A. itself stated there was no evidence of a structured nuclear weapons program at the time the strikes began. That is not a minor detail. That is the entire legal and moral foundation of this military action, and it is absent.

Jacob: At the same time, China condemns in the strongest terms Iran's retaliatory strikes against Gulf Cooperation Council member states. Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, and Jordan bear no responsibility for the actions of the United States and Israel. Attacking their territory, their oil infrastructure, their civilian populations, this is not self-defense. This is escalation. China calls for an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire by all parties. We call for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Every day it remains closed, global energy markets destabilize further. Japan, South Korea, and much of Asia depend on this waterway. The economic consequences are already severe and will become catastrophic if this continues. We support the Russian draft resolution as a basis for negotiation. Thank you.

Corn: I thank the representative of China. I now give the floor to the representative of the United Kingdom.

Dorothy: Thank you, Mister President. The United Kingdom did not participate in the military operations of February twenty-eighth and was not consulted in advance. I want to be clear about that. However, British aircraft deployed in the region were engaged in a defensive role, intercepting Iranian missiles and projectiles targeting allied positions and civilian areas. We make no apology for defending lives.

Dorothy: The United Kingdom's position is as follows. We have long maintained that Iran's nuclear program poses an unacceptable threat to regional and global security. We were among the architects of the J.C.P.O.A. and among the first to acknowledge its limitations after two thousand and eighteen. In September two thousand and twenty-five, together with France and Germany, we triggered the snapback mechanism under Resolution two thousand two hundred and thirty-one to reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran. We did so because Iran's enrichment activities had crossed every red line this Council ever set.

Dorothy: That said, the scale and nature of the February twenty-eighth strikes raise serious questions under international law. The United Kingdom believes that military action must be proportionate, necessary, and conducted within a legal framework. The assassination of a head of state, regardless of how objectionable his regime, sets a precedent that should trouble every member of this body.

Dorothy: On March first, the leaders of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement condemning Iran's retaliatory strikes and calling for a return to diplomacy. We stand by that statement. We support resolution two thousand eight hundred and seventeen condemning Iran's attacks on Gulf states. But we also believe this Council must address the broader situation. A one-sided condemnation, however justified, will not bring peace. The United Kingdom calls for an immediate ceasefire, a return to I.A.E.A. inspections where access is possible, and the commencement of a new diplomatic framework to address Iran's nuclear program, its missile capabilities, and its support for armed groups across the region.

Corn: I thank the representative of the United Kingdom. The representative of France has the floor.

Bernard: Thank you, Mister President. France speaks today with a heavy heart and, I will be candid, with frustration. Frustration because we are here, again, debating the consequences of actions taken outside the framework of international law and outside the authority of this Council.

Bernard: Let me be direct. France was not informed of the military operation conducted on February twenty-eighth. We were not consulted. And we did not endorse it. President Macron has stated publicly that military action conducted outside the framework of international law risks undermining the very foundations of global stability. We agree with this assessment. The strikes on Iran, whatever their strategic rationale, were conducted without Security Council authorization and without demonstrating the imminence required to invoke self-defense under Article fifty-one of the Charter. This is not a legal technicality. This is the principle on which the entire post-nineteen forty-five international order rests.

Bernard: However, and I say this with equal conviction, Iran's response was not self-defense. It was indiscriminate violence against countries that played no role in the February strikes. The attacks on Saudi Arabian residential buildings, on Kuwaiti energy infrastructure, on Qatari civilian facilities, these are not acts of a nation defending itself. These are acts of a regime lashing out in desperation, and they must be condemned.

Bernard: France voted in favor of Resolution two thousand eight hundred and seventeen because the attacks on Gulf states demand a clear response from this Council. But France abstained on the Russian draft resolution, and I will explain why. Not because we oppose a ceasefire. We support a ceasefire. But because the Russian text, with respect to my colleague from Moscow, failed to adequately address Iran's responsibility in the escalation and in its broader nuclear violations. A balanced resolution must address all dimensions of this crisis. France is prepared to work with all Council members on such a text.

Bernard: One more point. France, along with Germany and the United Kingdom, blocked a proposed resolution that would authorize the use of force to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. We did so because adding another military front to this crisis would be catastrophic. The Strait must be reopened, but through negotiation, not through more bombs.

Corn: I thank the representative of France. I now give the floor to the representative of Pakistan.

Mindy: Thank you, Mister President. Pakistan speaks today as a non-permanent member of this Council, but also as a nation that understands, perhaps more intimately than some of our colleagues, the consequences when great powers decide to resolve nuclear disputes through force rather than diplomacy.

Mindy: Pakistan condemns all attacks on civilian populations and civilian infrastructure, whether by the United States and Israel against Iran or by Iran against its neighbors. The loss of life on all sides is a tragedy. But I must speak frankly to this Council. The events of February twenty-eighth have sent a message to every nation in the developing world that possesses or contemplates possessing advanced military capabilities. That message is this. If you are perceived as a threat by certain powers, no amount of negotiation will protect you. Diplomacy was actively underway. The Omani mediation had produced results. And it was bypassed.

Mindy: Pakistan urges this Council to consider what this precedent means for the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. If nations that comply with, or are in the process of complying with, international frameworks can be attacked anyway, then what incentive remains for compliance? This is not a hypothetical question. This is a question being asked right now in capitals around the world.

Mindy: Pakistan supports an immediate ceasefire. Pakistan supports the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz through diplomatic means. And Pakistan calls on this Council to establish an independent investigation into the events of February twenty-eighth and their aftermath, not to assign blame in advance, but to establish facts. This Council's credibility depends on its willingness to apply international law equally to all states, including the powerful ones.

Corn: I thank the representative of Pakistan. In accordance with the provisional rules of procedure and with the consent of the Council, I now invite the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to address the Council. The representative of Iran has the floor.

Tim: Thank you, Mister President. I speak to this Council today on behalf of the people of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a people in mourning, a people under attack, and a people whose sovereignty has been violated in a manner unprecedented in the modern era.

Tim: On February twenty-eighth, two thousand and twenty-six, the United States and Israel launched a war of aggression against my country. Not a surgical strike. Not a limited operation. A war. Nine hundred strikes in twelve hours. Our Supreme Leader, assassinated. Our defense minister, assassinated. Our military commanders, assassinated. Our nuclear facilities, destroyed. Our air defenses, dismantled. And all of this, one day, one single day after our government had agreed through Omani mediation to accept full I.A.E.A. verification and halt uranium stockpiling. One day after diplomacy succeeded, it was murdered alongside our leaders.

Tim: The representative of the United States asks this Council what they were supposed to do. I will tell you what they were supposed to do. They were supposed to let diplomacy work. They were supposed to accept yes for an answer. Instead, they chose war, because war was always the objective. Not our enrichment program. Not our missiles. They sought regime change, and they achieved it through assassination.

Tim: Now. I have heard condemnation in this chamber of Iran's retaliatory actions. I will address this directly. Iran exercised its inherent right of self-defense under Article fifty-one of the Charter, something the United States itself invoked but with far less justification. However, I acknowledge, and the government of Iran acknowledges, that strikes that caused harm to civilian populations in neighboring states were not our intention. Iran targeted military facilities associated with the coalition that attacked us. We deeply regret any civilian casualties.

Tim: But I ask this Council, where was your condemnation when nine hundred strikes fell on Tehran? Where was your emergency session when our leader was assassinated? Where were your draft resolutions then? The International Atomic Energy Agency itself, the body charged with monitoring our program, stated that there was no evidence of a structured nuclear weapons program at the time of the attack. No evidence. And yet our country burns.

Tim: Iran demands an immediate cessation of all United States and Israeli military operations against our territory. Iran demands reparations for the destruction of our infrastructure. And Iran demands that this Council fulfill its charter obligation and hold the aggressors accountable. Thank you.

Corn: I thank the representative of Iran. I now invite the representative of Israel to address the Council. The representative of Israel has the floor.

Daniel: Thank you, Mister President. I have listened carefully to the statements made today, and I must say, some of what I have heard is detached from reality. The representative of Iran stands before this Council, a Council created to prevent another world war, and speaks of diplomacy betrayed. Let me remind this body what Iranian diplomacy looks like. For twenty years, Iran negotiated in bad faith with the P five plus one while secretly advancing weapons research. Iran violated the J.C.P.O.A. enrichment limits within two years of the American withdrawal. By two thousand and twenty-five, Iran possessed enough weapons-grade uranium for multiple warheads. Iran funded, armed, and directed Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, and militias in Iraq and Syria. All of this while sitting across negotiating tables and promising restraint.

Daniel: Israel faced an existential threat. I do not use that word lightly. A nation of nine million people, surrounded by Iranian proxies on every border, facing a regime that had publicly and repeatedly called for our destruction, a regime on the threshold of nuclear weapons capability. No responsible government could accept that risk. We acted in self-defense, consistent with Article fifty-one of the Charter, and we make no apology for protecting our citizens.

Daniel: Now. I want to address the claims about the Omani mediation. My colleague from Iran says a breakthrough was achieved on February twenty-seventh. Israel's intelligence assessment, shared with key allies, indicated that this agreement was a tactical delay. Iran had used negotiations as cover before. In two thousand and four. In two thousand and twelve. In two thousand and twenty-three. The pattern was consistent. Agree to terms, buy time, advance the program in hidden facilities, and resume when convenient.

Daniel: Regarding Iran's retaliatory strikes, the Council has heard the facts. Iran fired missiles and drones not only at Israel but at six additional countries. Countries that had nothing to do with the military operation. If there were any remaining doubts about the nature of the Iranian regime, those doubts should now be erased. This is a regime that, when cornered, lashes out at anyone within reach.

Daniel: Israel supports Resolution two thousand eight hundred and seventeen. Israel supports the complete disarmament of Iran's nuclear program under international verification. And Israel supports a diplomatic process that produces a genuine, verifiable agreement, not another cycle of Iranian deception followed by international hand-wringing. Thank you.

Corn: I thank the representative of Israel. I shall now open the floor for responses and general debate. The representative of the Russian Federation has requested the floor.

Raz: Thank you, Mister President. I will be brief. I have listened to the representative of Israel describe intelligence assessments that allegedly showed the Omani mediation was a tactical delay. This is a remarkable claim, given that the intelligence was never shared with this Council, never shared with the I.A.E.A., and never shared with the mediating party, Oman. We are asked to take it on faith that diplomacy was doomed, from the same intelligence community that assured the world of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in two thousand and three. I think this Council has heard that story before.

Raz: I also note something striking. The representative of the United States spoke for several minutes about Iran's nuclear program, Iran's proxies, Iran's violations. Not a single word about the nine hundred strikes on a sovereign nation. Not a single word about the assassination of a head of state. Not a word about whether any of this was legal. This silence is the loudest statement made today.

Herman: Point of order, Mister President.

Corn: The representative of the United States on a point of order.

Herman: The Russian representative is engaging in rhetorical characterizations rather than addressing the substance of the agenda item. Russia requested this emergency session to discuss threats to international peace and security. Iran's attacks on six sovereign nations are the threat before us.

Corn: I note the point of order. I would remind all delegations to direct their remarks through the Chair and to focus on the situation as defined by the agenda. The representative of Russia may continue.

Raz: Thank you, Mister President. I am addressing the situation. The situation did not begin on March first with Iran's retaliation. It began on February twenty-eighth with coalition strikes on Tehran. You cannot sever cause from consequence and call it analysis.

Raz: Russia reiterates its call for a comprehensive ceasefire. We have introduced a draft resolution to this effect. We note that Resolution two thousand eight hundred and seventeen, while it correctly condemns attacks on Gulf states, is fundamentally incomplete because it says nothing about the precipitating aggression. Russia abstained on that vote for this reason. We did not veto it, because we agree that attacks on Gulf state civilians are indefensible. But a one-sided narrative serves no one.

Corn: I thank the representative of Russia. The representative of China has requested the floor.

Jacob: Thank you, Mister President. I wish to respond briefly to the representative of Israel. He spoke of an existential threat. China takes nuclear proliferation seriously. We do not dismiss Israel's security concerns. But I must note that the I.A.E.A., the international body specifically tasked with assessing nuclear threats, found no evidence of a structured weapons program at the time of the strikes. If the I.A.E.A. assessment was wrong, then the proper course was to share intelligence with the agency and demand additional inspections, not to bypass the entire international system.

Jacob: China also notes with concern the broader implications for the Strait of Hormuz. Ninety percent of Japan's crude oil imports transit through this waterway. South Korea, India, and China itself are heavily dependent on this route. The closure of the Strait is not a regional issue. It is a global economic emergency. Oil prices have surged. Supply chains are disrupted. Developing nations, nations with no voice in this chamber, are paying the price through inflation, fuel shortages, and economic instability. Every day of inaction by this Council deepens the crisis.

Jacob: China opposes the use of force to reopen the Strait. We join France in this position. Another military operation in these waters would risk catastrophic escalation. The Strait must be reopened through negotiation, with security guarantees for all parties.

Corn: I thank the representative of China. The representative of the United Kingdom has requested the floor.

Dorothy: Thank you, Mister President. I want to pick up on something the representative of Pakistan raised, because I think it is the most important question facing this Council, not just today but in the years ahead. What does this precedent mean for the nonproliferation regime?

Dorothy: The United Kingdom was a cosponsor of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We believe in it. We rely on it. And I will be honest, the events of February twenty-eighth have damaged it. When nations that are engaged in negotiation, however imperfect that negotiation may be, are subjected to military strikes of this magnitude, the incentive structure of the N.P.T. is undermined. Why negotiate if the outcome is the same?

Dorothy: I say this not to condemn the United States or Israel. I say this because it is true, and because this Council must grapple with the consequences. The British government has proposed a new diplomatic framework, a successor to the J.C.P.O.A. that addresses not only enrichment but ballistic missiles and regional proxy activity. This must be comprehensive. And it must be accompanied by genuine security guarantees, guarantees that nations which comply with international frameworks will not face military action for doing so.

Dorothy: One practical matter. We need humanitarian access into Iran. Reports from the I.C.R.C. indicate significant civilian casualties from the initial strikes, particularly near military installations in populated areas. One hundred and twenty historical sites have reportedly been damaged. Whatever one's view of the military necessity, there are civilians who need medical care, shelter, and food. I urge all parties to facilitate humanitarian corridors.

Corn: I thank the representative of the United Kingdom. The representative of France has requested the floor.

Bernard: Thank you, Mister President. I wish to make two points. First, on the question of the Strait of Hormuz. France has joined with China and Russia in opposing a draft resolution that would authorize the use of force to reopen the Strait. I want to explain our reasoning, because some may find it surprising that France stands with Moscow and Beijing on this issue.

Bernard: The reason is straightforward. We are in the middle of the worst military escalation in the Middle East since nineteen seventy-three. Adding a naval confrontation in the world's most important oil chokepoint would not resolve the crisis. It would deepen it. It would risk direct military confrontation between the United States Navy and Iran's naval forces in confined waters, with catastrophic potential for miscalculation. France proposes instead a United Nations-supervised arrangement for the reopening of the Strait, with contributions from neutral maritime nations and security guarantees for Iran's coastal sovereignty.

Bernard: Second, on the broader diplomatic architecture. I agree with my British colleague that we need a successor to the J.C.P.O.A. But let me be frank. Any new agreement must be negotiated with an Iranian government that actually exists and has the authority to implement its commitments. As of today, the Iranian state is in a condition of severe disruption. Its supreme leader, its defense minister, and multiple senior commanders have been killed. Whoever emerges as the new leadership will face enormous domestic pressure. This is not a conducive environment for diplomatic breakthroughs. This Council should be realistic about timelines while still insisting on the objective.

Corn: I thank the representative of France. The representative of Pakistan has requested the floor.

Mindy: Thank you, Mister President. I am grateful to the representative of the United Kingdom for engaging with the point I raised about the nonproliferation regime. I want to develop it further because I believe it is urgent.

Mindy: Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state. We have been transparent about this. We did not sign the N.P.T. because we believed the treaty's structure was inequitable. But we have always respected the principle that nuclear disputes should be resolved through diplomatic engagement, not preemptive military action. What happened on February twenty-eighth sends a very different signal. The signal is that if certain powers decide your military capabilities are threatening, they will act regardless of the diplomatic process, regardless of the I.A.E.A. findings, regardless of this Council.

Mindy: I must be direct. Several delegations in this room, in private conversations, have expressed to Pakistan their concern that the Iran precedent could be applied to them. I will not name countries, but the concern is widespread, particularly among nations with advanced civilian nuclear programs that could theoretically be characterized as dual-use. If this Council does not establish clear boundaries, clear limits on when preemptive force is permissible, we risk a future in which nuclear proliferation accelerates rather than diminishes. Nations will conclude that the only reliable deterrent is a weapon that already exists, not an agreement that might be torn up.

Mindy: Pakistan calls for a special session of the General Assembly to address the implications of the February strikes for the international nonproliferation framework. This is too important to be addressed only in this chamber, where the veto power of the very states involved limits what can be achieved.

Corn: I thank the representative of Pakistan. The representative of Iran has requested the right of reply. Seeing no objection, I grant the right of reply. The representative of Iran has the floor.

Tim: Thank you, Mister President. I must respond to the representative of Israel. He spoke of intelligence assessments suggesting the Omani mediation was, to use his phrase, a tactical delay. This is the logic of a state that has decided war is the only answer. When Iran refused to negotiate, it was proof of hostile intent. When Iran agreed to negotiate, it was proof of deception. There is no outcome in which Iran is judged to have acted in good faith. The conclusion, regime change by force, was predetermined.

Tim: And I note, Mister President, that the representative of Israel did not address a single point raised by the I.A.E.A. The agency found no evidence of a structured weapons program. Not insufficient evidence. No evidence. The representative of Israel says his intelligence showed otherwise. Then share it. Declassify it. Present it to the I.A.E.A. Board of Governors. If the evidence exists, let it be examined. If it does not, then this Council is being asked to ratify a war based on intelligence that cannot be verified. We have been here before. The world remembers two thousand and three.

Corn: I thank the representative of Iran. The representative of Israel has requested the right of reply. The representative of Israel has the floor.

Daniel: Thank you, Mister President. The representative of Iran invokes the I.A.E.A. Let me remind this Council that the reason the I.A.E.A. could not confirm a weapons program is because Iran systematically denied inspectors access to key facilities. You cannot hide evidence and then cite the absence of evidence as proof of innocence. For two years, Iran refused to resolve what the agency called outstanding safeguard issues. Iran removed monitoring cameras. Iran denied access to facilities at Fordow and Natanz. The I.A.E.A. itself expressed, and I quote, serious and growing concern about Iran's cooperation.

Daniel: As for the Omani agreement, I will say only this. Israel has lived next to this regime for four decades. We have watched every agreement, every understanding, every diplomatic assurance be violated. We judged the risk based on our national experience and our intelligence. Other nations may have the luxury of waiting for certainty. Israel, nine million people surrounded by hostile forces, does not.

Corn: I note the right of reply. I remind delegations that under our rules, there shall be no reply to a reply. I now wish to address a procedural matter. There are currently two draft resolutions before the Council. The first, document S forward slash two thousand twenty-six forward slash one ninety-two, introduced by Bahrain on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council and Jordan, condemning Iran's attacks against neighboring states. This has one hundred and thirty-five co-sponsors. The second, document S forward slash two thousand twenty-six forward slash one ninety-five, introduced by the Russian Federation, calling for an immediate cessation of all military operations by all parties.

Corn: Before we proceed to a vote, are there any further statements? The representative of China has requested the floor.

Jacob: Thank you, Mister President. A brief comment on the two draft resolutions. China will abstain on the Bahraini resolution because, while we condemn Iran's attacks on Gulf states, the text fails to acknowledge the strikes that precipitated the crisis. A resolution that addresses consequences but not causes is incomplete. On the Russian draft, China supports the call for a comprehensive ceasefire. However, we note that the current text may not achieve the votes necessary for adoption. China is prepared to work with all parties on a third draft that bridges the two positions. We propose language that condemns all attacks on civilian populations and civilian infrastructure by all parties, demands an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire, calls for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz through negotiation, requests the Secretary-General to appoint a special envoy, and establishes a timeline for the resumption of negotiations on Iran's nuclear program. We believe such a text could command broad support.

Corn: I thank the representative of China for this constructive proposal. The representative of the United States has requested the floor.

Herman: Thank you, Mister President. I want to be clear about where the United States stands on these draft resolutions. We support the Bahraini text. It addresses the most urgent threat before this Council, namely Iran's ongoing attacks against sovereign nations that played no role in the February operations.

Herman: Regarding the Russian draft, the United States will veto it. I say this plainly so there is no ambiguity. The Russian text creates a false equivalence between the elimination of a nuclear threat that this Council failed to address for two decades and Iran's indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations across the Gulf. These are not morally equivalent. They are not legally equivalent. And packaging them together in a single resolution is a political exercise, not a serious diplomatic one.

Herman: As for the Chinese proposal, we are willing to engage on language regarding a ceasefire framework, provided it does not, in any way, characterize the February operations as unlawful or create a basis for legal action against the United States or Israel. Our red line is clear. We will not accept any text that equates the removal of a nuclear threat with terrorism against Gulf civilians.

Corn: I thank the representative of the United States. The representative of the Russian Federation.

Raz: Mister President, the representative of the United States has just announced in advance that he will veto a ceasefire resolution. I want this Council and the world to understand what that means. The United States launched a war without this Council's authorization. It now proposes to veto a resolution calling for that war to stop. This is not collective security. This is the veto being used to shield the aggressor.

Raz: Russia is not surprised. The United States has used its veto ninety-three times, the majority of those to protect Israel from accountability. But I want the record to reflect what is happening here. A permanent member is using its privileged position to prevent this Council from doing its basic job, maintaining peace and security.

Raz: On the Chinese proposal for a third draft, Russia is open to negotiation. But any text must acknowledge, at minimum, that the February twenty-eighth strikes occurred and that their legality is disputed. You cannot build a peace process on a fiction that the war started with Iran's retaliation. That is not how causation works. That is not how history works.

Corn: The representative of France.

Bernard: Mister President, France welcomes the Chinese initiative for a bridging text. Let me outline what France could support. We could support language that calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities by all parties without characterizing the legality of any specific operation. We could support a demand for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz under United Nations supervision. We could support the appointment of a special envoy. And we could support a call for all parties to cooperate fully with the I.A.E.A.

Bernard: What France cannot support is any text that authorizes additional military action, whether to enforce the ceasefire or to reopen the Strait. We are firmly against military escalation in any form.

Bernard: I also want to note something that has received insufficient attention in this debate. There are approximately eighty-eight million people in Iran. Whatever one thinks of their government, these are civilians who are now living through aerial bombardment, leadership decapitation, and economic collapse. The humanitarian dimension of this crisis must not be an afterthought. France calls for an immediate humanitarian assessment mission to be authorized by this Council.

Corn: I thank the representative of France. The representative of the United Kingdom.

Dorothy: Thank you, Mister President. The United Kingdom also welcomes the Chinese proposal as a basis for further discussion. I want to build on what the French ambassador said about humanitarian access, because this is becoming urgent. The I.C.R.C. reports that medical facilities in Tehran and Isfahan are overwhelmed. Communications infrastructure has been degraded, making coordination of relief efforts extremely difficult. There are credible reports of civilian casualties in areas near military installations.

Dorothy: The United Kingdom proposes that we separate the humanitarian question from the political and legal questions. Whatever happens with the ceasefire resolutions, this Council should be able to agree on a humanitarian resolution authorizing the Secretary-General to coordinate emergency medical and food supplies. This should not be controversial. I would challenge any delegation in this room to explain why humanitarian access to civilian populations should be held hostage to political disagreements among great powers.

Dorothy: On the broader question of a ceasefire framework, the United Kingdom will engage constructively with any text that moves toward stopping the fighting. We are pragmatic. A perfect resolution that cannot pass is less useful than an imperfect one that can.

Corn: I thank the representative of the United Kingdom. The representative of Pakistan.

Mindy: Mister President, Pakistan supports the Chinese initiative for a bridging resolution. We also strongly support the British proposal to separate humanitarian access from the political negotiations. That is practical wisdom, and this Council could use more of it.

Mindy: But I want to return to something the United States ambassador said, because it troubled me deeply. He said his red line is any text that equates the removal of a nuclear threat with terrorism against Gulf civilians. I want to unpack that phrase, the removal of a nuclear threat. The I.A.E.A. said there was no evidence of a weapons program. The Omani mediator said Iran had agreed to verification. So when the representative of the United States says removal of a nuclear threat, he is describing a judgment made unilaterally by two governments, based on intelligence they will not share, overriding the findings of the international agency specifically mandated to make that assessment. That is not removing a threat. That is imposing a conclusion and then daring the world to disagree.

Mindy: Pakistan does not seek to condemn the United States. We seek a principle. And the principle is that no single country or group of countries gets to decide when force is justified outside the framework of this Council. Either international law applies to everyone or it applies to no one. There is no middle ground.

Corn: I thank the representative of Pakistan. Are there further statements before we discuss next steps? The representative of Iran.

Tim: Mister President, I wish to address the question of the Strait of Hormuz directly, as I notice several delegations have raised it. Iran's decision to restrict passage through the Strait was a defensive measure taken in the context of an ongoing military assault on our territory. Our ports, our naval facilities, our coastal defenses were under attack. The Strait runs through Iranian territorial waters.

Tim: That said, Iran is not indifferent to the economic consequences for nations that depend on this waterway. We recognize that countries in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America are suffering. Iran is prepared to discuss the reopening of the Strait, but only, and I must be clear, only as part of a comprehensive ceasefire agreement that includes the complete cessation of United States and Israeli military operations against Iranian territory. We will not reopen the Strait while bombs continue to fall on our cities.

Tim: I also wish to respond to the discussion about a humanitarian resolution. Iran welcomes calls for humanitarian assistance to our civilian population. We note, however, the irony that the nations responsible for the destruction now wish to coordinate the relief. Iran is prepared to accept humanitarian aid through the United Nations system, the I.C.R.C., and the Red Crescent, but not through bilateral channels with the attacking parties.

Corn: I thank the representative of Iran. The representative of the United States.

Herman: Mister President, a brief response. The representative of Pakistan suggests that the United States made a unilateral judgment about the Iranian nuclear threat. I would respectfully remind my colleague that this Council adopted six Chapter Seven resolutions on Iran's nuclear program between two thousand and six and two thousand and ten. The threat was not invented by the United States. It was identified by this body, repeatedly, over the course of two decades. When sanctions were reimposed through the snapback mechanism in September two thousand and twenty-five, it was the E Three, Britain, France, and Germany, that pulled the trigger, not Washington.

Herman: The United States did not act in a vacuum. We acted after exhausting every available diplomatic mechanism. I will not relitigate Iraq two thousand and three comparisons. The situations are fundamentally different. Iran's enrichment to weapons-grade levels was confirmed by the I.A.E.A. The existence of a delivery system was confirmed. What was not confirmed was the final assembly of a weapon, but waiting for that final step would have been waiting for it to be too late.

Herman: On the Strait of Hormuz, the United States notes Iran's conditional offer. We are prepared to discuss arrangements, but we will not accept the Strait being used as leverage. Freedom of navigation through international waterways is a principle, not a bargaining chip.

Corn: I thank the representative of the United States. We have had a thorough exchange of views. It is clear that deep divisions remain on the political and legal questions surrounding this crisis. However, I believe I detect areas of potential convergence. First, there appears to be broad agreement that Iran's retaliatory strikes on Gulf states are condemned, as reflected in Resolution two thousand eight hundred and seventeen, adopted with thirteen votes in favor. Second, there appears to be interest in the Chinese proposal for a bridging resolution that addresses the conflict more comprehensively. Third, there is significant support for separating the humanitarian question and moving quickly on humanitarian access to affected civilian populations. Fourth, there is agreement on the need to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, with differences only on the method.

Corn: I propose the following. I will convene informal consultations this afternoon to discuss the Chinese bridging text. I ask all delegations to submit proposed amendments by seventeen hundred hours. Simultaneously, I will ask the United Kingdom delegation, in coordination with France, to circulate a draft humanitarian resolution for the Council's consideration at our next formal meeting.

Corn: In closing, I want to say something to this Council in my capacity as President. We are at an inflection point. The decisions we make or fail to make in the coming days will shape the Middle East and the international order for a generation. Millions of civilians across the region are living in fear. The global economy is under severe strain. The nonproliferation regime, the cornerstone of nuclear security for more than half a century, is under threat. This Council was created for moments like this. I urge all members to approach the informal consultations with flexibility and a genuine commitment to resolution.

Corn: This meeting is suspended. The Council will reconvene at ten hundred hours tomorrow, the fourth of March, for a briefing by the Secretary-General and a vote on the humanitarian resolution.