New York: A tense and polarized debate erupted at the United Nations Security Council as the United States formally defended its high-stakes military campaign code-named Operation Midnight Hammer against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The U.S. ambassador to the UN, Dorothy Shea, strongly justified the strikes as a lawful and strategic response to what Washington described as “imminent nuclear escalation and threats to international peace.” However, global powers including Russia and China vocally condemned the operation, warning of catastrophic consequences and calling for an immediate ceasefire in the region.
Ambassador Shea asserted that the United States had acted within its right to defend both its national interests and its allies. Framing the strikes as “measured, necessary, and proportionate,” she emphasized that the goal was not to trigger war, but to dismantle specific nuclear infrastructure that posed a growing threat. The ambassador confirmed that the military operation targeted Iran’s hardened nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, employing B-2 stealth bombers and submarine-launched cruise missiles in what the Pentagon termed a “synchronized precision strike.”
According to Shea, intelligence assessments confirmed Iran’s advancement toward weapons-grade enrichment and the presence of military-grade centrifuges in violation of previous agreements. “The international community cannot remain passive in the face of a regime that accelerates nuclear breakout timelines while rejecting all diplomatic overtures,” she declared.
The Pentagon echoed this stance, revealing that the strikes were planned meticulously and were followed by immediate notification to U.S. congressional leaders in accordance with the War Powers Act. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth reiterated that the mission was not “open-ended” and emphasized that any future action would be determined by Iran’s behavior moving forward.
Russia’s Ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, issued a scathing critique of the U.S. operation, warning that the strikes had “opened Pandora’s Box in the Middle East.” He denounced the military campaign as a “flagrant violation of international law and the UN Charter,” and warned that further escalation could spiral into a regional or even global conflict. Nebenzia also questioned the credibility of U.S. claims about Iranian nuclear developments, suggesting that Washington had bypassed diplomatic channels in favor of military force.
Moscow, which has strategic ties with Tehran, called for an emergency resolution demanding an unconditional ceasefire and respect for state sovereignty. The Russian delegation circulated a draft resolution supported by several non-aligned members, although it faces a likely veto by the U.S.
China’s UN envoy, Fu Cong, aligned with Russia in condemning the U.S. strikes, calling them “dangerously provocative” and damaging to Washington’s credibility as a peace-broker. Fu warned that the escalation could unravel fragile regional diplomacy and reignite hostilities across the Middle East, particularly in flashpoints like Lebanon, Gaza, and the Red Sea. “We urge all parties, especially the United States and Israel, to cease military operations and return to dialogue,” said the Chinese envoy.
Beijing also expressed concern over the precedent set by the unilateral use of force, emphasizing that global conflicts must be addressed through multilateral institutions not through acts of aggression.
The emergency session highlighted the deep divisions within the Security Council. While the U.S., the UK, and several NATO-aligned countries backed the operation as a counter-proliferation measure, other members including Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia called for restraint and demanded a return to negotiation under the framework of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
UN Secretary-General António Guterres voiced grave concern over the unfolding crisis. He urged all parties to de-escalate tensions immediately and warned that the conflict risked setting off a “regional wildfire.” Guterres emphasized that diplomacy, not war, must be the path forward, particularly in a region already scarred by years of instability.
The military strikes have shaken geopolitical stability and triggered economic ripple effects. Oil prices surged past $100 per barrel amid fears of Iranian retaliation, particularly threats to close the Strait of Hormuz a critical artery for global energy supply. Airlines rerouted flights, and international investors expressed concern over a protracted confrontation between the West and Iran.
Meanwhile, Tehran vowed to respond with “unpredictable and decisive force,” and Iran’s allies have begun mobilizing support diplomatically and militarily. A full Iranian response is expected within days, raising alarm over the potential for direct clashes with U.S. forces stationed in Iraq, Syria, and the Persian Gulf.
The U.S. has made it clear that its goal is not regime change, but rather to compel Iran to the negotiating table through overwhelming pressure. However, the course of events remains dangerously unpredictable. The deepening crisis has left the international community at a crossroads, with one path leading toward urgent diplomacy and the other toward wider war.
With tensions peaking and no resolution yet in sight, all eyes now turn to the next steps from Tehran, Washington, and the broader UN community. The coming days may well determine whether this marks the beginning of a new regional war or the last gasp before dialogue resumes.