Bahraini and Gulf diplomacy succeeds in the Security Council: Global condemnation of Iranian attacks on the security and sovereignty of Arab Gulf states
Amidst the crises facing countries, diplomacy emerges as a frontline defense in light of the varying positions of countries on these crises due to the war of rumors that has raged as a result of modern means of communication. Here, diplomatic work gains importance in three aspects. First: conveying the true picture of the crisis and its security implications to the countries of the world. Second: testing partnerships between countries, especially in light of the balance of power and differing interests within international organizations. Third: the ability of countries to work within the corridors of international organizations.
Based on the above, Resolution 1817, adopted by the Security Council on March 11, 2026, and drafted by the Kingdom of Bahrain on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan , condemned Iran’s attacks on a number of countries in the region, considering them a violation of international law and a serious threat to international peace and security, and demanded their immediate cessation and respect for freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandab Strait in accordance with international law – It was supported by 13 members, with Russia and China abstaining, which is considered a diplomatic victory for the Kingdom of Bahrain and the countries that submitted the draft resolution on its behalf.
This success crystallized in light of three facts. First: 135 members of the United Nations supported the draft resolution out of a total of 193 member states, which means that the majority of the world’s countries are convinced of the need to condemn Iran’s attacks on the territory of the Kingdom of Bahrain and other affected sister countries, and demanding their immediate cessation as a violation of the UN Charter and the principles of international law, which stipulate the preservation of the security and sovereignty of states, especially since the Arab Gulf states are not parties to the war, but rather have been impartial mediators between Iran and the United States, and want – and continue to want – to resolve differences by peaceful means. Second: The outcome of the vote on the resolution reflected the success and reliability of the international partnerships of the Kingdom of Bahrain and the Arab Gulf states, especially when the US representative to the Security Council, Mike Waltz, referred to the targeting of the 90-year-old oil refinery in the Kingdom of Bahrain, condemning the targeting of vital facilities in the Kingdom and the rest of the Arab Gulf states. Thirdly, the fruitful efforts of the Kingdom of Bahrain’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations during the Kingdom’s non-permanent membership of the Security Council (2026-2027) as the crisis posed a huge challenge, especially as the Kingdom’s draft resolution coincided with a similar draft submitted by Russia, but it did not receive enough votes, as only four members supported it, two opposed it, and nine abstained. This meant that Bahrain’s diplomatic battle within the UN was twofold: how to convince the world of the extent of the damage faced by the Kingdom and its sister countries, while at the same time rallying votes for the draft resolution in the face of another resolution submitted by a permanent member of the Security Council with diverse partnerships and interests with UN member states.
The successful role of the Kingdom of Bahrain and the GCC countries in the UN is based on historical experience. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the GCC countries also succeeded in urging the Security Council to condemn threats to maritime navigation at that time – Iran was a party to those threats – through Resolution 552 issued on June 1, 1984. It included “an appeal to all states to respect the right of freedom of navigation in accordance with international law, and to affirm that right in international waters and sea lanes for ships bound for and from all ports and installations of coastal states that are not parties to the hostilities, and to condemn attacks on commercial ships bound for and from the ports of the State of Kuwait and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and demanding an immediate end to these attacks and that no ship bound for or from states not party to the hostilities be intercepted.” It is worth noting that the preamble to this resolution referred to the letter dated May 21, 1984, from the representatives of the six GCC states, which included those states’ complaint about Iranian attacks on commercial vessels traveling to and from the ports of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, in addition to the foreign policies of the GCC countries, which are characterized by moderation, non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, and the peaceful resolution of disputes, which are the same principles and values upheld by the United Nations and international law.
The Kingdom of Bahrain and the Arab Gulf States – based on this international success – have documented for history that they have never been advocates of war, but rather that their goal is peace and their means are tolerance and coexistence, and that they have never been a party to any conflicts, despite the attacks they have suffered on their vital facilities, while retaining their full right to defend themselves, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
Last but not least, I believe that the success of the Kingdom of Bahrain’s mission to the United Nations during this unprecedented diplomatic battle reflects the skill and ability of the Kingdom’s people to express its interests and those of its brothers and partners who have entrusted it and defend them in all fields, including diplomatic action, to expose allegations that are divorced from reality during this crisis.
Note: This article has been automatically translated, the full article is available in Arabic.
Dr. Ashraf Mohammed Keshk, Director of International and Strategic Studies Program
