Strait Line: The UN Security Council will not support the use of military force in Hormuz

On April 4, the UN Security Council will vote on a resolution on the safety of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. According to media reports, its preliminary tough version was significantly softened due to the position of Russia and China. Moscow and Beijing, as well as France, opposed allowing the use of force to unblock the strait. The resolution is being discussed amid the crisis over Iran and the threat of the conflict expanding to other sea routes. At the same time, political turbulence is growing in the United States: large-scale personnel changes and resignations are being recorded in the White House and the Pentagon due to disagreements over the Iranian strategy and against the background of general pressure on the American administration.

The UN Security Council resolution on the Strait of Hormuz was softened

The initial draft resolution of the UN Security Council on the safety of navigation was prepared by Bahrain. It contained provisions allowing for the use of "all necessary means" to ensure the passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, as well as the waters of the Persian and Oman Gulfs. This formulation has traditionally been interpreted in UN practice as permission to use offensive military force.

However, according to the Associated Press, Russia, China and France opposed this option. These countries do not want to legitimize a military scenario. As a result, the document was significantly revised: only the wording on the right to defensive actions to protect navigation remained in it. The resolution is to be adopted at the Security Council meeting on April 4.

Photo: TASS/AP/Altaf Qadri

The document is being discussed amid the ongoing crisis over Iran, which has restricted shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. This has already led to a sharp rise in global energy prices. There are warnings about possible further escalation. So, according to a source of Izvestia in the Yemeni Ansar Allah movement (Houthis), it is considering the scenario of blocking the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. This could happen if the Gulf states take a direct part in the military campaign against Iran. The movement calls such measures a likely response to the "expansion of aggression" and the involvement of regional states in the conflict.

Challenge to battle: the UN Security Council will consider a resolution on the opening of the Strait of Hormuz

Bahrain has taken the initiative to use "all necessary means" for this.

A member of the Ansar Allah political bureau, Khuzam al-Assad, told Izvestia that the movement participates in countering the "American-Israeli aggression" against the peoples of the region, acting on the basis of "moral, humanitarian and religious principles."

Photo: Global Look Press/IMAGO/Tom Dubravec

"Issues related to the Red Sea and the possible expansion of operations directly depend on the escalation on the part of the enemy and are made based on the decisions of the leadership, with each event having its own reaction,— said Khuzam al-Assad.

On April 3, US President Donald Trump again made a number of harsh statements: he demanded that the Iranian authorities make a deal as soon as possible and threatened attacks on the country's civilian infrastructure. According to him, the American armed forces "have not yet begun to destroy what remains in Iran," and he named bridges and power plants among the potential targets.

Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

At the same time, the media write, there is no complete consensus within the US administration on the future strategy. Trump is allegedly considering the possibility of withdrawing from the conflict, fearing that a protracted military campaign will negatively affect the positions of Republicans in the upcoming midterm congressional elections. The party risks losing control of the House of Representatives due to the administration's declining ratings caused by both the foreign policy crisis and rising domestic prices.

Purges in the US leadership

An additional indicator of tension in Washington was the unprecedented personnel restructuring at the Pentagon. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dismissed the Chief of Staff of the US Army, Randy George, and a number of other senior military officials. According to Reuters, the decisions also affected the head of the Army Transformation and Training Command, a key post in charge of army modernization and military doctrine development. The official reasons for the dismissals were not disclosed, but the agency emphasizes that such steps are extremely rare in a military conflict.

Former Chief of Staff of the US Army Randy George

Photo: REUTERS/Daniel Becerril

Personnel changes at the Pentagon are causing noticeable tension in the American military establishment. According to the New York Times, the dismissal of the chief of Staff of the Army was perceived in the highest echelons of the armed forces with "anger and disappointment," and a number of high-ranking officers regarded it as another blow to the army, which is already operating under increased pressure. According to the sources of the publication, such decisions increase the sense of instability in the military leadership and may reflect deepening disagreements between the political and military levels in Washington.

To be left without ports: what the US land operation against Iran might look like

The capture of islands or a seaside harbor, as well as raids deep into the continent are possible scenarios.

Earlier, it was also reported about tension in the political bloc of the administration: the British Guardian claims that the US president discussed with his advisers the possibility of removing the head of the US National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. The presence of contradictions within the president's inner circle is also indicated by a Time report that Vice President Jay D. Vance took a more restrained position and opposed a military operation against Iran. Perhaps some representatives of the political and administrative apparatus are deliberately distancing themselves from Trump's hardline course, given the decline in his public support and ratings. According to this logic, individual figures in the leadership tend not to associate their future careers with potentially unpopular decisions of the American president in order to minimize reputational risks.

Tulsi Gabbard, Head of U.S. National Intelligence

Photo: REUTERS/Kylie Cooper

According to the Atlantic, active discussions of possible further resignations in the White House serve as additional evidence of personnel turbulence in the American administration. In particular, we are talking about the potential departure of FBI Director Cash Patel, Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll, who participated in the negotiations on Ukraine, as well as Labor Minister Lori Chavez-Deremer.

Earlier, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, was dismissed, who in an open letter called on the president to reconsider his strategy towards Iran. He claimed that Tehran posed no immediate threat to the United States, and the decision to launch a military campaign was made under the influence of Israel. The high-ranking official's public demarche has become one of the most visible manifestations of disagreements within the American administration and has increased the sense of division around the Iranian policy direction.

U.S. Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll

Photo: TASS/AP/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

Retired Lebanese brigadier General Munir Shehade, commenting on the situation to Izvestia, noted that the US attempts to achieve a change of power in Iran had turned into internal upheavals for the American system itself. According to him, the dismissal of key military leaders in the midst of a conflict contradicts the established principles of American military doctrine, according to which the command staff does not change during a conflict. He also stressed that senior officers in the United States traditionally express an independent position on strategy and tactics, which can become a source of disagreement with the political leadership.

Roman Yanushevsky, editor-in-chief of the website of the 9th Israeli TV channel, believes that after the expiration of the announced ultimatum on April 6, Washington may proceed to decisive actions aimed at the economic strangulation of Iran. According to him, the country's oil sector will be a key target: blocking supplies, including through Kharq Island and Khuzestan province, can quickly deprive the Iranian authorities of the main source of budget revenues and provoke an acute shortage of financial resources.