U.N. Council Weighs Chapter VII Mandate to Keep Strait of Hormuz Open as Iran War Disrupts Oil Flows

Diplomats on the U.N. Security Council are weighing an unusually stark question: whether the United Nations should, in effect, authorize the use of force to break Iran’s grip on the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel that carries a fifth of the world’s oil.

Bahrain circulates Chapter VII draft

In closed-door consultations this week, Bahrain circulated a draft Security Council resolution that would call on U.N. member states to take “all necessary means” to keep the strait open to international shipping, according to diplomats familiar with the text. The resolution is framed under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which allows the Council to mandate sanctions and, if necessary, military action in response to threats to international peace and security.

If adopted in anything like its current form, the measure would amount to the first explicit U.N. mandate for armed enforcement of freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most strategic waterways—and a sharp escalation of the international response to the 2026 war between Iran, the United States, Israel and their regional allies.

The proposal has already met resistance from Russia and China, both permanent, veto-wielding Council members, who diplomats say object to the Chapter VII basis and to language widely read as legal cover for a naval campaign targeting Iranian attempts to restrict traffic.

A chokepoint under siege

The debate is unfolding against the backdrop of an unprecedented disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. Since late February, when the United States and Israel launched a massive wave of airstrikes on Iran that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has attacked or threatened commercial vessels and signaled it will bar “hostile” shipping from the waterway.

The strait, a 21-mile-wide bottleneck between Iran and Oman, normally carries about 20 million barrels of crude oil a day, along with large volumes of liquefied natural gas. Shipping data from commercial tracking firms show tanker traffic has fallen by roughly 90% since the war began, with only about 150 vessels managing to transit since the start of March. At least around 10 ships have been struck by missiles or drones in or near the passage, leaving multiple dead and forcing insurers to impose steep war-risk premiums.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres told the Council late last month that he was receiving “deeply troubling reports that the Strait of Hormuz is being closed, or effectively closed, to international shipping.” He warned that “the risk of a full-scale regional conflict is real and must be avoided at all costs,” and called on all parties to step back from the brink.

Gulf states push for tougher action

For Bahrain and other Gulf Arab states that have come under direct Iranian missile and drone fire in recent weeks, the costs are already mounting. The island kingdom hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet and has been hit by Iranian strikes during the current conflict. Its ambassador to the U.N., Jamal Fares Alrowaiei, has accused Tehran of “cowardly attacks” and of “threatening maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz,” and has urged the Council to move from condemnation to concrete measures.

Earlier this month, the Council took a first step in that direction. On March 11, it adopted Resolution 2817, drafted by Bahrain on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council and Jordan. That text condemned Iran’s missile and drone attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, and declared that any Iranian actions aimed at closing or obstructing navigation through the strait constitute a “serious threat to international peace and security.”

The resolution passed with 13 votes in favor and two abstentions, from Russia and China, which argued it was unbalanced because it did not mention the U.S.-Israeli strikes that triggered Iran’s retaliation.

Bahrain’s new draft goes considerably further. Diplomats who have seen the text say it would authorize U.N. member states and “naval partnerships” to take “all necessary means” to ensure secure passage through Hormuz and to “repress, neutralize and deter” efforts to close or interfere with navigation there. In U.N. practice, the phrase “all necessary means” has long been understood as shorthand for authorizing armed force, as in earlier resolutions on Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait and international efforts to combat piracy off Somalia.

The draft also demands that Iran “immediately cease all attacks against merchant and commercial vessels” and stop impeding freedom of navigation in and around the strait, citing the impact on global trade, energy security and the world economy.

Iran cites self-defense; lawyers dispute it

Iran, in a series of letters to the United Nations, has defended its actions as lawful self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Tehran says it is facing “armed aggression” from the United States and Israel and claims it is taking “necessary and proportionate” steps to prevent those states and their partners from using Hormuz to sustain military operations against Iran.

Iranian officials have told the U.N. and the International Maritime Organization that “non-hostile vessels” may still transit the strait, provided they coordinate with Iranian authorities and are not supporting “aggression” against Iran. U.S., Israeli and certain allied ships are explicitly excluded from that category, effectively creating a unilateral licensing regime for passage through the waterway.

Maritime law specialists say Iran’s position conflicts with the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees “transit passage” through straits used for international navigation and prohibits coastal states from suspending that passage even in times of conflict. Iran has signed but not ratified the convention; many other states argue that its rules on straits reflect customary international law.

“The closure of an international strait, especially one as vital as Hormuz, goes beyond any reasonable interpretation of self-defense,” a Gulf diplomat said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. “This is about coercion of the entire international community.”

Military moves and competing drafts

Washington has already taken some unilateral military steps around the strait. U.S. forces have destroyed vessels they say were laying naval mines, and American A-10 attack jets and Apache helicopters have been deployed to the region to protect shipping and strike fast-attack boats. President Donald Trump has publicly threatened to bomb Iranian power plants if Tehran does not ease restrictions on the strait and has floated the idea of seizing small Iranian islands near the shipping lanes to secure passage.

The United States currently holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council, giving it procedural influence over the agenda. But its position on Bahrain’s draft remains opaque. U.S. officials have repeatedly called for “regional leadership” in protecting Hormuz and have pressed European and Asian allies to send warships, but diplomats say Washington has not yet put its full weight behind the Chapter VII text, mindful of the risk of a Russian or Chinese veto.

France has stepped in with a rival draft aimed at bridging the divide. That proposal, according to diplomats, avoids placing the issue under Chapter VII, does not name Iran, and instead calls on “all parties” to refrain from further escalation, to respect freedom of navigation and to return to diplomatic channels. Paris is hoping to craft language strict enough to reassure energy-dependent states but flexible enough to win over Moscow and Beijing.

Russia and China, for their part, have signaled they are open to a resolution that supports maritime security but oppose anything they view as a blank check for force or as an endorsement of what they see as U.S. and Israeli aggression against Iran. Both have extensive trade ties with Tehran and rely on Gulf energy exports, but diplomats say they remain wary of establishing a precedent that could later be invoked in the Black Sea, the South China Sea or around Taiwan in the name of “freedom of navigation.”

Economic stakes rise as talks drag on

The economic stakes are considerable. Benchmark oil prices have jumped sharply since the conflict began, and analysts warn crude could climb above $100 a barrel if Hormuz remains effectively shut to most Western-aligned traffic. Higher shipping and insurance costs, combined with disruptions to exports of oil, gas, fertilizers and key industrial inputs, are rippling through economies from Asia to Africa, adding pressure to already strained budgets and feeding public anger over rising prices.

Despite those pressures, diplomats say no vote on either the Bahraini or French text is likely this week as negotiations continue behind closed doors. Key sticking points include whether any resolution should explicitly invoke Chapter VII, whether it should name Iran as the source of the threat, and how far it should go in defining what states may do to protect shipping.

As envoys haggle over wording on the East River, tankers and cargo ships continue to idle or divert around the world’s most important energy chokepoint, and war planners in regional capitals prepare for the possibility that the crisis at sea could deepen. The Council’s eventual decision—to endorse robust enforcement, to opt for softer diplomacy, or to remain deadlocked—will help determine not only the next phase of the Iran war, but also how far the United Nations is willing to go to defend the arteries of global commerce in an era of intensifying great-power rivalry.