Amir Saeid Iravani (Iran) on the Strait of Hormuz Draft Resolution - Security Council Media Stakeout

Good afternoon everyone. In the name of God, the Compassionate and Merciful. As you are aware, the United States and the Kingdom of Bahrain has jointly tabled a deeply flawed, one sided and politically motivated resolution on the situation in around the Strait of Hormuz. They claim that their actions are intended to protect freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and made some baseless allegations against my country. The fact on the ground proves otherwise. The actions of the United States stand in stark contradiction to its stated objectives and have served only to escalate tensions and deepen instability in the region. Iran's position is clear. The only viable solution in the Strait of Hormuz is a permanent end to the war, the lifting of maritime blockade and the restoration of normal passage. Instead, the US is pushing a flawed, politically motivated draft resolution under the pretext of freedom of navigation to advance its political agenda and legitimize unlawful actions not to resolve the crisis. The draft resolution does not seek to protect international navigation. The real purpose is to legitimize the unlawful action of the United States against Iran in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, including its illegal maritime blockade. It advances a selective and distorted narrative and therefore lack of impartiality and credibility required for Security Council actions. The draft resolution also ignores the root cause of current situation, the unlawful military aggression and the use of force by the United States and the Israeli regime

against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The present crisis is the direct result of the unlawful war imposed by the United States since 28 February. The draft falsely accused Iran of violating ceasefire of 8 April while deliberately concealing materials fact.

It also attributes serious violation to Iran, including attacks on vessels and placement of sea mines, without presenting credible unverified evidence. The allegation of placing sea mines in the Strait attributed to Iran by the sponsors of the TARAF resolution is entirely misleading and serves political objectives. It ignores the unlawful maritime blockade imposed by the United States as well as attacks on the seizure of Iranian vessels. These actions constitute a material breach of of the ceasefire, violation of the prohibition on the Sea of force and serious infringement of freedom of navigation. The sponsors of the draft selectively invoke international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, while disregarding the United States own egregious violations. Furthermore, the claim that the current situation has constitute a threat to international peace and security has no objective or credible basis. The invocation of Chapter 7 of the charter is wholly unjustified, disproportionate and based on politically motivated allegations and itself further military objectives. If adopted, this resolution would seriously damage the credibility and impartiality of the Security Council. It would politicize the Council's enforcement power and establish a dangerous precedent for legitimizing unilateral coercive measures and unlawful action by the United States against the sovereignty and sovereign rights of coastal states. The unlawful war of aggression by the United States and the Israeli regime remains the sole and direct cause of the current situation in and around the Persian Gulf. The Security Council must not be exploited by aggressors or instrumentalized to legitimize unlawful conduct. Member States must remain vigilant against any attempts to distort international law in ways that could justify aggression or the unlawful use of force. Again, let me stress clearly Iran remains fully prepared to resolve normal maritime traffic and ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz provided that the war is permanently ended and the unlawful blockade is lifted. Iran's actions in the Strait of Hormuz are consistent with international law. International law, particularly in situation of Iran conflict, recognize the inherent rife of coastal states when subjected to aggression to take necessary measures to defend the national security, sovereignty and territorial integrity. As a coastal state, Iran cannot be excluded from the application of these fundamental principles of international law. By contrast, the military presence of the United States in Persian Gulf thousands of miles from its own territory lack any sound legal justification. Rather, it is destabilizing factor that contributed to rising tension and insecurity in the region. The question today before the Council members therefore, is why should a Member State, located thousands of miles away from the Persian Gulf and acting in a destabilizing manner, be permitted to use the Security Council to advance its political agenda in the Persian Gulf while Iran, as a coastal state of the Strait of Hormuz is denied its lawful rights to defend its security and sovereignty and is instead threatened with enforcement action on the Chapter seven of the Charter. Member of the Security Council must provide a clear and principled response to this fundamental question because today is Iran, tomorrow will be another state. Let it be clear, Iran supports peace, security and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz for all stability in the Persian Gulf must benefit all nations, including the people of Iran. It is neither fair nor acceptable for one side to continue suffering on the unlawful sanctions, coercive measures and maritime blockade, while others enjoy safe and unrestricted passage through the Strait of Hormuz under the banner of freedom of navigation. Such an approach is inconsistent with the principles of international law, fairness and international human rights law. The path to de escalation and stability lies in respect for international law and the Charter of the United nations, not in the misuse of Security Council for political purposes and further military objectives. In the light of these facts and given the continued pressure exerted by the United States on Member States to co sponsor this draft resolution for political and propaganda purposes and Iran call on Member States to take a principled and responsible position by rejecting this draft resolution and refraining from supporting or co sponsoring it. Finally, the representative of the United States invoked international law, the UN Convention of 1982 and the 1949 judgment of the ICJ in the call for channel case to justify the United States position on freedom of navigation and pretended that the US Respect freedom of navigation. If there is any Member State that lack credibility in invoking international law, the UN Convention and the authority and jurisprudence of the icj, it is the United States. The United States is the the aggressor. It initiated two wars of aggression against Iran. It is flagrantly violated the UN Charter, international law and the international humanitarian law. It has shown no respect for the principles of distinction and proportionately by targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure in Iran acts which constitute serious violation of international law and amount of war crimes. These atrocious crimes have been openly acknowledged at the highest level by the President of the United States himself. In addition to persistent violation of international law and the UN Charter, the United States has a long and well documented record of disregarding and refusing to comply with with decisions and judgment of the ICJ. From the rejection of the ICJ judgment in the Nicaragua case in 1986, including the court's finding regarding the United States unlawful use of force against Nicaragua such as the blockade and the mining of ports and internal water of the Nicaragua and to repeated non compliance with the ICJ decision in case brought Iran against the United States, Washington has consistently demonstrated disregard to binding international judicial decision whenever they don't align with its political interests. Furthermore, the United States has neither the legal, political nor moral standing to portray itself as a defender of freedom of navigation or maritime security. The United States has continued its internationally wrongful act by imposing a so called maritime blockade on lawfully seizing Iranian commercial vessels like pirates and taking their crews hostage. These dangerous escalating measures violate international law beneath the UN Charter, constitute the crime of piracy and amount to act of aggregation as defined in Article 3C of General Assembly Resolution 3314 of 14 December 1974. These are not the actions of a Member State committed to freedom of navigation. They are act that undermine maritime security and violate fundamental principles of international law. Indeed, the President of the United States openly acknowledged that these unlawful actions amounted to a form of piracy, while the U.S. attorney publicly boasted and defended this action of piracy. This conduct fully exposes the hypocrisy and double standard underlining the United States claims before the Security Council. Thank you for your kind attention.

Your country is accused of demanding a fee on vessels trying to pass. How is that consistent with international law?