

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?
(more…)





















