Arab countries attempt to break the deadlock through force; China, Russia, and France oppose it.

► Observer Network, Liubai

The United States and Israel have single-handedly sparked the fighting, causing the originally functioning Strait of Hormuz to be completely shut down. Now, countries including the United States are trying to break the deadlock by force again—an outcome that is rich in irony.

According to Reuters and the New York Times, citing multiple sources on April 2, local time on April 3, the United Nations Security Council plans to vote on a draft resolution for the Strait of Hormuz escort—led by Bahrain—supported by the Gulf Arab states and the United States. The core of the draft is to authorize member states to use “all necessary defensive measures” to protect merchant ships. However, according to informed officials, because the three permanent members—China, Russia, and France—have clearly opposed wording that authorizes the use of force, and because other member states also have disagreements, the prospects for the draft to pass are bleak.

It is precisely the U.S.-Israel military actions that have brought chaos to the strait. On June 24, 2025, ships were transiting the Strait of Hormuz as seen from Musandam Governorate in Oman. IC Photo

Bahrain urgently calls for “decisive response”

Since late February, when the United States and Israel launched military actions against Iran, international oil prices have continued to surge. In practice, the Strait of Hormuz has already been closed to shipping.

The Wall Street Journal also mentioned on March 31 that Arab states have been pushing the UN Security Council to pass a resolution to open the Strait of Hormuz by force.

Latest reports further disclose developments. Reuters reported on the 2nd, citing diplomats, that the Security Council will vote on a draft resolution proposed by Bahrain on the 3rd, aimed at protecting merchant ships navigating the Strait of Hormuz and surrounding waters.

The diplomats said that Bahrain, the current rotating chair of the Security Council, has finalized a draft resolution proposing to authorize “all necessary defensive measures” to protect merchant ships’ navigation.

The draft resolution seen by Reuters shows that the relevant authorization measures will be in effect for “at least 6 months… until the Security Council decides otherwise.”

On the 2nd, Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Zayani told the Security Council that he expected the Council to present a unified position in the draft’s vote and that “a decisive response” is needed to Iran’s actions controlling international navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

Bahrain’s efforts to push the resolution have been supported by other Gulf Arab states and the United States. Ahmed Abou Gheit, Secretary-General of the Arab League, which has 22 member states, spoke at the Security Council, supporting Bahrain’s efforts to push the resolution.

For a Security Council resolution to be adopted, at least 9 votes in favor are required, and none of the five permanent members—the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France—will use their veto power.

China, Russia, and France oppose; other countries also disagree

But judging from the information available so far, controversy over this draft is considerable.

On April 2, the New York Times cited senior UN officials saying that Russia, China, and France are in fact opposed to the draft being adopted; all three explicitly oppose any wording in the draft authorizing the use of force. The report said it remains unclear whether additional diplomatic mediation time could cause these three countries with veto power to change their stance.

According to diplomats, disagreements exist not only among the permanent members, but also among the ten non-permanent members of the Security Council.

The current draft resolution is already the fourth version after weeks of closed-door negotiations. Clauses that have triggered the impasse mention that the Security Council would “authorize all member states, whether acting individually or through voluntary multinational naval cooperation mechanisms, in advance notification to the Security Council,” to take all necessary means to “ensure the free flow of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and prevent any acts of closure, obstruction, or interference with this international waterway.”

Another Reuters report disclosed that to resolve opposition from Russia, China, and others, Bahrain has deleted wording in the draft that explicitly mentions “compulsory law enforcement.”

However, when the Chinese representative spoke at the Security Council on the 2nd, China again emphasized that it explicitly opposes authorizing the use of force. The representative said this “would legitimize illegal, indiscriminate use of force and inevitably lead to further escalation of the situation, bringing about serious consequences.”

It is also worth noting that since this round of conflict broke out, China has repeatedly set out its position on the situation in the Strait of Hormuz.

China has consistently emphasized that the Strait of Hormuz and nearby waters are vital conduits for international trade in goods and energy. Maintaining security and stability in this region aligns with the common interests of all parties in the international community. The top priority is for relevant parties to immediately stop military actions, prevent tensions from further escalating and spreading, and prevent regional turmoil from having an even greater impact on global economic development.

It is understood that the fourth version of the draft resolution had entered a so-called “silent approval” process, with a deadline of noon on the 2nd. But a Western diplomatic source said that China, Russia, and France have broken the silent approval process and expressed opposition to the draft.

The diplomat said that the draft was then finalized and entered the “blue text” stage, meaning a vote can be initiated. The vote will be held during the Security Council meeting on the morning of the 3rd.

The New York Times believes that for Iran, Arab neighbors coming together in the Security Council to oppose it means relations have seriously worsened and may even become impossible to repair. For years, Iran has tried to build closer relations with neighboring countries, but in the war over the past month, these relations have been completely destroyed.

Earlier, the Wall Street Journal cited statements from Arab officials saying that, in response to Iran’s increasingly intense retaliatory missiles and drones, the stance of U.S. allies such as the United Arab Emirates—who had tried to avoid getting pulled into the conflict—quickly shifted to a hardline position, and “it seems the only remaining issue is time” before they join in.

“Before the war, the strait was open”

Analysts said that the action led by Bahrain is more symbolic than practically feasible, because most countries in the Persian Gulf have relatively small militaries and heavily rely on U.S. support, with nearly no experience fighting militaries of the scale of Iran’s.

This view is not uncommon. Middle East analysts have warned that there are many risks involved in actions to open the strait. Positioning oneself as a belligerent against Iran could lead to the two countries’ tense relations persisting for the long term after the war.

Elizabeth Denter, a researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Pentagon official responsible for Gulf affairs, said when discussing the predicament facing regional states: “Once these countries enter the conflict, they will only face a more aggressive Iran, continuing to suffer losses from attacks on critical infrastructure, even undermining investors’ confidence, and it will be difficult to restore relations with neighboring countries after the war.”

On April 2, French President Emmanuel Macron said that statements from Trump urging countries that rely on the strait to forcibly open the shipping lane by force are not realistic.

“This is not realistic, because it would take a very long time, and it would expose any power moving through the strait to threats from the Revolutionary Guard along the coast.” Macron warned that Iran has vast resources, including ballistic missiles, and that opening the strait by force could trigger even more risks.

Abdulaziz Sagher, chairman of the Gulf Studies Center headquartered in Saudi Arabia, said that any ceasefire agreement must address Iran’s ability to attack Gulf states and control shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

“We won’t forget what they did to us, and they won’t forget the large amount of assets the United States has in the Gulf,” he said.

Analysts said that, especially among Saudi and Emirati officials, there was an understanding that the best way to respond to the Iranian threat is to push for diplomacy and shared economic interests.

Bahrain is an exception. This island nation, ruled by a Sunni royal family but whose citizens are mostly Shia, has long had adversarial relations with Iran, accusing Iran of interfering in its domestic affairs and stirring up unrest.

But after the war, even countries such as Qatar and Oman—which have often acted as mediators between the United States and Iran—also said that relations between the two sides may no longer be repairable. They have handed the mediation role to Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt.

Ali Vaez, director for Iran at the International Crisis Group, said that the resolution proposed by Bahrain has flaws and could further intensify regional tensions.

He pointed out that the closure of the strait is a result of war, while the waterway was open before the strikes occurred.

“Treating a political crisis as a problem that can be solved with guns.”