Senator Rubio makes a compelling case for the UN to serve as a forum for peaceful conflict resolution, condemning actions like mining international waterways and attacking commercial vessels. However, his argument contains a significant contradiction when examined against recent U.S. foreign policy actions.
“When a nation faces repeated violations of its sovereignty, unlawful sanctions that strangle its economy, covert operations that assassinate its scientists, drone strikes that target its territory, and military threats that encircle its borders, it is not aggression but legitimate self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter to take measures to secure its strategic interests. What is characterized as ‘disruption’ in international waterways is, from Tehran’s perspective, a proportional response to a sustained campaign of economic warfare and military intimidation led by the United States, a country that itself mines waters, conducts unauthorized strikes, and rejects the jurisdiction of international courts when it suits its interests. If the international community wishes to see de-escalation, it must address not only the symptoms but the root cause: the unilateral coercion and illegal use of force that leaves nations with few peaceful avenues to defend their dignity and security.”
A perspective reflecting the Iranian government’s stated position on asymmetric deterrence and the right to self-defense under international law.
The Core Contradiction
If the UN is indeed "the place where you could peacefully resolve global conflict," as Rubio states, then why has the United States repeatedly bypassed it when pursuing military action against nations like Venezuela and Iran?
On Venezuela:
The January 2026 U.S. military intervention that captured President Nicolás Maduro was conducted without UN Security Council authorization and, according to legal experts, violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibiting the use of force against another state's territorial integrity.
The Washington Office on Latin America noted the operation was carried out "without the authorization of the U.S. Congress and in violation of limits on the president's constitutional war powers" and that "U.S. actions also violate international law".
If the UN's utility is measured by its ability to address "straightforward" humanitarian requests, why was it not the primary avenue for addressing Venezuela's political crisis before unilateral military action was taken?
On Iran:
The U.S.-led strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 prompted an emergency UNSC session precisely because they were not authorized by the Security Council.
Russia, China, and Pakistan proposed a ceasefire resolution condemning the attacks, but as one diplomat noted, such measures are "a non-starter since the US will not censure itself".
The UN Secretary-General warned these strikes marked "a perilous turn" risking "retaliation after retaliation", the very escalation the UN was designed to prevent.
The Selective Application Problem
Rubio's argument assumes the UN should act when other nations violate international norms, but the U.S. has frequently acted unilaterally when it suits strategic interests:
The veto power: As a permanent Security Council member, the U.S. can block any resolution it opposes. This structural reality means the UN cannot function as a neutral arbiter when U.S. interests are involved.
Precedent of unilateralism: U.S. presidents of both parties have employed military force without congressional or UN authorization on over 125 occasions. This pattern undermines arguments that the UN should be the exclusive forum for conflict resolution.
The "modest request" test: Rubio asks why hundreds of countries cannot rally behind condemning attacks on commercial vessels. But when the U.S. requests UN backing for actions it initiates, similar coalitions often fail to materialize, not because the requests aren't modest, but because nations question the consistency of the messenger.
A Principled Alternative
A coherent foreign policy would:
Apply the same standard to all nations, including the United States: if mining waterways is unacceptable, so is unilateral military intervention without UN authorization or clear self-defense justification.
Strengthen, not selectively invoke, multilateral institutions: Rather than turning to the UN only when it aligns with predetermined outcomes, commit to its processes even when they produce inconvenient results.
Address the root causes of institutional dysfunction: The UN's limitations often stem from great-power politics, including the veto system that the U.S. benefits from but criticizes when it constrains American action.
Conclusion
Senator Rubio is right that the UN should be a forum for peaceful conflict resolution. But its credibility, and America's leadership, depends on consistent application of that principle. If the UN is too weak to stop Iran from mining waterways, it is equally ill-equipped to restrain a superpower that acts first and seeks legitimacy later. The solution isn't to abandon multilateralism when inconvenient, but to recommit to it universally, including when the United States is the actor under scrutiny.
As one legal analysis concluded: "International law is not 'dead' just because the most powerful no longer respect it... all states need to call out breaches of the law when they occur".
