Speaking at a UN Security Council stakeout on May 7, Amir Saeed Iravani said the proposed resolution was aimed at legitimizing unlawful US actions against Iran in the Persian Gulf rather than protecting freedom of navigation, stressing that the ongoing crisis stemmed from “the unlawful war of aggression” launched by the United States and the Israeli regime against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The full text of his statement is as follows:
In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
Good afternoon, everyone.
As you are aware, the United States and the Kingdom of Bahrain have jointly tabled a deeply flawed, one-sided, and politically motivated draft resolution on the situation in and around the Strait of Hormuz.
They claim that their actions are intended to protect freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and made some baseless allegations against my country.
The facts on the ground prove otherwise.
The actions of the United States stand in stark contradiction to its stated objectives and have served only to escalate tensions and deepen instability in the region.
Iran’s position is clear.
The only viable solution in the Strait of Hormuz is a permanent end to the war, the lifting of the maritime blockade, and the restoration of normal passage.
Instead, the US is pushing a flawed, politically motivated UNSC draft resolution under the pretext of “freedom of navigation” to advance its political agenda and legitimize unlawful actions—not to resolve the crisis.
The draft resolution does not seek to protect international navigation.
Its real purpose is to legitimize the unlawful actions of the United States against Iran in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, including its illegal maritime blockade.
It deliberately advances a selective and distorted narrative and therefore lacks the impartiality and credibility required for Security Council action.
The draft resolution also ignores the root cause of the current situation: the unlawful military aggression and use of force by the United States and the Israeli regime against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The present crisis is the direct result of the unlawful war imposed by the United States since 28 February 2026.
The draft falsely accuses Iran of violating the ceasefire of 8 April 2026 while deliberately concealing material facts.
It also attributes serious violations to Iran, including attacks on vessels and placement of sea mines, without presenting credible and verified evidence.
The allegation of placing sea mines in the Strait attributed to Iran by the sponsors of the draft resolution is entirely misleading and serves political objectives.
It ignores the unlawful maritime blockade imposed by the United States, as well as attacks on and seizures of Iranian vessels. These actions constitute a material breach of the ceasefire, violations of the prohibition on the use of force, and serious infringements of freedom of navigation.
The sponsors of the draft selectively invoke international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, while disregarding the United States’ own egregious violations.
Furthermore, the claim that the current situation constitutes a “threat to international peace and security” has no objective or credible basis. The invocation of Chapter VII of the Charter is wholly unjustified, disproportionate, and based on politically motivated allegations and itself further military objectives.
If adopted, this resolution would seriously damage the credibility and impartiality of the Security Council. It would politicize the Council’s enforcement powers and establish a dangerous precedent for legitimizing unilateral coercive measures and unlawful actions by the United States against the sovereignty and sovereign rights of coastal States.
The unlawful war of aggression by the United States and the Israeli regime remains the sole and direct cause of the current situation in and around the Persian Gulf.
The Security Council must not be exploited by aggressors or instrumentalized to legitimize unlawful conduct. Member States must remain vigilant against any attempt to distort international law in ways that could justify aggression or the unlawful use of force.
Again, let me stress clearly: Iran remains fully prepared to restore normal maritime traffic and ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, provided that the war is permanently ended and the unlawful blockade is lifted.
Iran’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz are consistent with international law.
International law, particularly in situations of armed conflict, recognizes the inherent right of coastal States, when subjected to aggression, to take necessary measures to defend their national security, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
As a coastal State, Iran cannot be excluded from the application of these fundamental principles of international law.
By contrast, the military presence of the United States in the Persian Gulf—thousands of miles from its own territory—lacks any sound legal justification. Rather, it is a destabilizing factor that has contributed to rising tensions and insecurity in the region.
The question today before Council members therefore is: why should a Member State located thousands of miles away from the Persian Gulf, and acting in a destabilizing manner, be permitted to use the Security Council to advance its political agenda in the Persian Gulf, while Iran, as a coastal State of the Strait of Hormuz, is denied its lawful rights to defend its security and sovereignty, and is instead threatened with enforcement action under Chapter VII of the Charter?
Members of the Security Council must provide a clear and principled response to this fundamental question. Because today is Iran and tomorrow will be another state.
Let it be clear: Iran supports peace, security, and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz for all. Stability in the Persian Gulf must benefit all nations, including the people of Iran.
It is neither fair nor acceptable for one side to continue suffering under unlawful sanctions, coercive measures, and maritime blockade, while others enjoy safe and unrestricted passage through the Strait of Hormuz under the banner of “freedom of navigation.”
Such an approach is inconsistent with the principles of international law, fairness, and international human rights law.
The path to de-escalation and stability lies in respect for international law and the Charter of the United Nations — not in the misuse of the Security Council for political purposes and further military objectives.
In light of these facts, and given the continued pressure exerted by the United States on Member States to co-sponsor this draft resolution for political and propaganda purposes, Iran calls on all Member States to take a principled and responsible position by rejecting this draft resolution and refraining from supporting or co-sponsoring it.
Finally, the representative of the United States invoked international law, the UN Convention of 1982, and the 1949 Judgment of the ICJ in the Corfu Channel case to justify the United States’ position on freedom of navigation and pretended that the US respects freedom of navigation.
If there is any member state that lacks credibility in invoking international law, the UN Conventions, and the authority and jurisprudence of the ICJ, it is the United States.
The United States is the aggressor. It initiated two wars of aggression against Iran.
It has flagrantly violated the UN Charter, international law, and international humanitarian law.
It has shown no respect for the principles of distinction and proportionality by targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure in Iran, acts which constitute serious violations of international law and amount to war crimes.
These atrocious crimes have been openly acknowledged at the highest level by the President of the United States himself.
In addition to persistent violation of international law and the UN Charter, the United States has a long and well-documented record of disregarding and refusing to comply with decisions and judgments of the ICJ.
From its rejection of the ICJ’s judgment in the Nicaragua case in 1986, including the Court’s findings regarding the United States’ unlawful use of force against Nicaragua—such as the blockade and the mining of ports and internal waters of Nicaragua—to its repeated non-compliance with ICJ decisions in cases brought Iran against the United States, Washington has consistently demonstrated disregard for binding international judicial decisions whenever they do not align with its political interests.
Furthermore, the United States has neither the legal, political, nor moral standing to portray itself as a defender of freedom of navigation or maritime security.
The United States has continued its internationally wrongful acts by imposing a so-called maritime blockade, unlawfully seizing Iranian commercial vessels, like pirates, and taking their crews hostage.
These dangerous escalating measures violate international law, breach the UN Charter, constitute the crime of piracy, and amount to acts of aggression, as defined in Article 3(c) of General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974.
These are not the actions of a member state committed to freedom of navigation; they are acts that undermine maritime security and violate fundamental principles of international law.
Indeed, the President of the United States openly acknowledged that these unlawful actions amounted to a form of piracy, while the U.S. Attorney publicly boasted and defended these acts of piracy.
This conduct fully exposes the hypocrisy and double standards underlying the United States’ claims before the Security Council.
Thank you for your kind attention.
MNA
Your Comment