Lavrov Reveals Who Lurks Behind Bahrain's Draft UNSC Resolution

Today Lavrov met with Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and Egyptians Abroad of the Arab Republic of Egypt Benjamin Abdelati and then held a press conference during which he set forth remarks about their talks as usual and then fielded a few Questions. We saw the previous Bahrain UNSC resolution that didn’t mention the war criminals—Outlaw US Empire and Occupied Palestine—but blamed Iran for acting in its UN Charter approved self-defence by attacking where the aggressors launched their aggression from—bases within GCC nations that were supposed to be for their defense. The wording of the first resolution showed who the likely author was just as the verbiage in this newest attempt does—The Outlaw US Empire. I provided what follows in a comment made to the current Iran thread at Moon of Alabama, but the site owner trashed it for some unknown, unexplained reason despite its obvious vital importance to understanding the events surrounding this war. What follows are a portion of Lavrov’s opening remarks that relate to the topic followed by an excerpt from the first Q&A that’s then followed by the most important question posed:

Remarks:

We paid special attention to the most acute crisis of the current period, the unprecedented escalation in the Persian Gulf as a result of the unprovoked aggression of the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both Russia and Egypt are in favour of an immediate cessation of hostilities and a return to the political and diplomatic process in order to settle the existing differences while ensuring the security interests of all states in the region without exception, including the friendly Arab countries of the Persian Gulf: Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and, of course, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

We reviewed the situation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone, which is now disappearing from the front pages, and I think this is not deserved, because the problem has not disappeared. We emphasised the need to make the truce in the Gaza Strip, which was reached in October 2025 largely due to Egypt’s active mediation efforts, sustainable.

We are both concerned about the developments in the West Bank, where the Israeli authorities are consistently pursuing a policy of strengthening administrative and legal control through the creation of more and more settlements. We share the conviction that there is no alternative to a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian problem on the existing and still valid international legal basis with a central two-state formula. [My Emphasis]

First Q&A excerpt:

Question (retranslated from Arabic): In your speech, you mentioned important regional problems. In light of the rapid developments in the Middle East, among the other issues you discussed was the issue of regional security in the light of the situation in Iran and the Gaza Strip.

What are the prospects for strengthening mutual understanding and coordination between Russia and Egypt on these issues? Is there any understanding on a joint response to these challenges? …

This is not always easy, because sometimes such serious contradictions are provoked (as a rule, this is done by external forces) that it is even difficult to establish some kind of communication. We see this in a number of cases that have been listed today, but this does not negate the main thing: water wears away a stone. We have such a proverb.

It is necessary to achieve a cessation of hostilities and the start of negotiations. This is the only way to see how sincerely the parties want peace and a good future for their citizens, the citizens of the respective countries.

We appreciate the role of Egypt, which acts as a mediator in a number of crisis situations, providing Cairo with a platform for various meetings on a number of African crisis situations. And on other issues, he always takes the initiative. Not every time is this loudly declared. For our Egyptian colleagues, as well as for us, the main thing is not to “remove” some sensational “foam” (sorry for such an expression), but to try to achieve real results.

Real work loves silence. Those who are engaged not in self-promotion, but in real work, are convinced that in the end they will succeed. [My Emphasis]

Vital Q&A:

Question: Moscow has invariably called for giving priority to a political and diplomatic settlement in the Middle East. She called for a ceasefire to prevent a full-scale military conflict in the region. Do you see a response to Russia’s initiatives on the part of the parties to the conflict? Or are we on the verge of moving the conflict to a more dangerous phase? How is Bahrain’s proposal for a draft resolution on the protection of commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz progressing? What is Russia’s position on this issue?

Sergey Lavrov: We do not hide our position. We have been voicing it regularly since the beginning of the US-Israeli aggression against Iran on February 28 of this year. The Presidential Executive Office and President Vladimir Putin himself regularly touch on this issue in their contacts.

In recent days, President of Russia Vladimir Putin has had several telephone conversations with the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Prior to that, there were contacts with the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Through the foreign ministers, we are working in close contact with our Iranian colleagues. Yesterday, April 2, I had a telephone conversation with Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi. Of course, we also maintain contacts with our friends from the Gulf states. On Monday, March 30, we held a videoconference at which we discussed the current situation in detail for more than two hours, including how it is being discussed in the UN Security Council.

We can discuss the project itself, which was submitted by Bahrain and which has been considered in the UN Security Council for several days. Many people do this – they take the text and start discussing. This is the professional approach of those who are ultimately responsible for the product produced by the UN Security Council. But even if we take this purely expert point of view, a large number of problems appear.

Leaving aside the description of the difficulties – calls for Iran not to respond to strikes on its territory – the key purpose and central point of this resolution is a paragraph that authorizes all interested states, whether in their national capacity or as part of a united coalition, to take all necessary measures to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. During the talks, they added “all necessary defensive measures,” but immediately made a reservation - “proportionate to the circumstances.”

Who will determine these circumstances? Of course, those states that are given the right to apply all “necessary defensive measures”. We know how our Western colleagues used to deal with seemingly quite defensive decisions of the UN Security Council – they were immediately turned upside down and used for their aggressive actions.

The second point. These measures are allowed to the states concerned, but they will also act “in proportion to the circumstances” on the territory of those coastal states of the Persian Gulf that will not participate in the “defensive measures” in any way. This is a direct violation of their sovereignty. Such a decision by the UN Security Council is unlikely to add to the chances of a peaceful settlement. Not to mention the authority of this body.

All this is happening against the backdrop of statements coming from Washington, including US President Donald Trump’s assertions, that “negotiations are underway” and that the people with whom the Americans communicate are “much more reasonable.” Like, they hear and react. The Iranians do not deny the fact of contacts, although they say that these are not negotiations, but an exchange of positions. Nevertheless, this is already some kind of process. The day before yesterday, US President Donald Trump said that as soon as the hostilities end (according to him, almost all the tasks there have been resolved), navigation in the Strait of Hormuz will immediately resume on a normal basis. So the problem is not that you need to demand something from Iran. It is necessary to stop hostilities, and then the regime of the strait will be restored, which is fully based on the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which defines all the norms of navigation in peacetime. In wartime, it is not valid.

Our Chinese colleagues emphasise the same points in their contacts with their partners from the Gulf: it is necessary to stop hostilities in order to restore shipping. When we are persuaded that we need to adopt this resolution in the midst of what the United States calls negotiations (it is clear that the adoption of this resolution, which does not even mention that Iran has become a victim of aggression, will antagonize the authorities in Tehran), it means that someone wants to undermine the prospects for negotiations that have been or are emerging. Unless, of course, everyone who talks about peace talks really wants them. It would be absolutely wrong to undermine such intentions.

If the talks about negotiations are again planned to be used to carry out another attack on Iran “on the sly” (as was the case in June 2025 and February of this year), then this resolution is intended to legitimise all aggressive actions against Iran “retroactively”.

The last thing I want to say in this regard. This already belongs to the sphere of legal interpretations. Our friends in the Gulf tell us that Iran has attacked them and that they have the right to self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. This is true. This article exists. But in order to use it and take any concrete steps to exercise this right to self-defence, no UN Security Council resolution is needed.

When the U.S., along with Israel, began attacking Iran, it publicly stated that it was an exercise of the right to self-defense. In response to the question, “Iran did not attack you, did it?” they said that Article 51 also provides for the act of preventive defensive measures to deprive the attacker of any prospects, even if he had no plans to do so.

During the videoconference, I asked our friends in the Gulf if Iran had attacked them. There were no such facts. In response, the view was expressed that, in all the years of its existence, the Islamic Republic of Iran had always wanted to attack its neighbours. Then a “lucky” opportunity turned up - the Republic was attacked by the Americans and Israelis, so now it began to strike at the Arab states.

Maybe all these arguments get into the media space with the best intentions. But the end result is the same. Surely this resolution was planned with the best intentions, but either it is being used to disrupt the still very fragile chances for negotiations, or it is being used to legitimize aggression against Iran “retroactively”.

I hope that all our detailed explanations have been heard by our friends in the Gulf and in the Arab world as a whole. [My Emphasis]

It must be noted that Iran is a signatory to the UN Law of the Sea but hasn’t ratified it so it has no jurisdiction, while Oman has signed and ratified. So, in the joint treaty that Iran and Oman are currently formulating for managing Hormuz, those differences will need to be dealt with. And as Lavrov noted, the treaty is nullified by the conflict, so Iran is within its rights to close Hormuz. Close readers will have noted Lavrov’s dig at Trump—the “self-promoter”—and that hostilities must cease for negotiations to commence. The big problem is the utter lack of credibility of the Outlaw US Empire when it comes to negotiating anything with anybody. That’s why Iran has said the solution will be resolved on the battlefield, a decision that’s very similar to Russia’s regarding its SMO in Ukraine for very similar reasons. All those phone calls to Putin were attempts to get Russia to not veto the Bahrain UNSC draft. However, it seems clear to me that both Russia and China will and it’s also said that France will also, which is somewhat of a surprise.

Of course, as with the first Bahrain resolution, the goal is to absolve the Outlaw US Empire of the monstrous crime it’s committed along with the Zionists—The Nuremburg Capital Crime of waging Aggressive War, and that aim tells us who the ultimate author is—someone within the Trump Gang. And then there’re the GCC gangsters who thought the Big Gangster would protect them only to discover it will only protect its Zionist Gangster—that they don’t count for anything but tributaries to the Outlaw US Empire and its Zionist proxy. Some have learned quickly—Qatar—and some have greatly benefitted—Iraq, which is almost free of the Empire’s clutches.

It’s come to my notice via an article in Guancha that Iran’s former Foreign Minister Javad Zarif wrote a peace proposal that was published in Foreign Affairs Magazine that merits reading. Here’re the opening four paragraphs:

Iran did not start its war with the United States and Israel. But more than a month in, the Islamic Republic is clearly winning it. American and Israeli forces have spent weeks incessantly bombing Iranian territory, killing thousands of people and damaging hundreds of buildings, all in hopes of toppling the country’s government. Yet Iran has held the line and successfully defended its interests. It has maintained continuity of leadership even as its top officials have been assassinated, and it has repeatedly hit back at its aggressors even as they strike at its military, civilian, and industrial facilities. The Americans and the Israelis who started the conflict with delusions of forcing capitulation thus find themselves in a quagmire without an exit strategy. The Iranians, by contrast, have pulled off a historic feat of resistance.

To some Iranians, this success is reason to continue fighting until the aggressors are adequately punished rather than to search for a negotiated ending. Every night since February 28, large crowds of proud Iranians have gathered across the country to show their defiance by shouting, “No capitulation, no compromise, fight with America.” After all, the United States has proved that it cannot be trusted in talks and that it will not respect Iran’s sovereignty. By this logic, there is no reason to engage with the country now and offer it an off-ramp. Instead, Tehran should press its advantage, continuing to strike U.S. bases and blocking commerce in the Strait of Hormuz until Washington fundamentally alters its regional presence and posture.

Yet although continuing to fight the United States and Israel might be psychologically satisfying, it will lead only to the further destruction of civilian lives and infrastructure. These actors, desperate after failing to achieve any of their objectives, are increasingly resorting to targeting vital pharmaceutical, energy, and industrial sites and randomly hitting innocent civilians. [Compounding their already numerous crimes.] The violence is also slowly drawing in more countries, threatening to turn a regional conflagration into a global one. And regrettably, international organizations have been bullied by the United States into staying silent in the face of Washington’s many atrocities, including its massacre of nearly 170 schoolchildren on the first day of the war.

Tehran, then, should use its upper hand not to keep fighting but to declare victory and make a deal that both ends this conflict and prevents the next one. It should offer to place limits on its nuclear program and to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for an end to all sanctions—a deal Washington wouldn’t take before but might accept now. Iran should also be prepared to accept a mutual nonaggression pact with the United States in which both countries pledge to not strike each other in the future. It could offer economic interactions with the United States, which would be a win for both the American and the Iranian people. All these outcomes would enable Iranian officials to focus less on protecting their country from foreign adversaries and more on improving the lives of their people domestically. Tehran, in other words, could secure the new, brilliant future Iranians deserve. [My Emphasis]

The great problem IMO for Zarif’s proposal is that it’s formulated on the premise that Iran’s nuclear program is the issue when it’s Iran’s existence that’s the issue, and IMO there’s only one way for Iran’s continued existence to be guaranteed, and that’s to include Russia and China in any agreement that’s obtained. And then there’s the point of the Zionists who are the enemies of the world and who share the root cause of this war with the Outlaw US Empire. IMO, Zarif and many others are somehow incapable of seeing the fact that the Zionist’s aim is a Greater Zionist state called Greater Israel that can only be obtained via its own version of Hitler’s Plan Ost for all peoples of the region whose primary defender is Iran—the GCC are wimps and earmarked to become Zionist slaves, that is those few who survive the genocide—and thus Iran must be removed as the main obstacle.

Thus, the world—Humanity—faces a stark choice: The small group of exceptionalists that are Zionists but also exist within other nations and have that same mind disease must be removed from power in West Asia and the other nations where they reside—the Outlaw US Empire most specifically. What Humanity has to its great misfortune is what can be described as a malignant tumor that is very painful and must be excised from the Human Body Politic before it causes further damage to the Body. Iran and the Arc of Resistance need to be promoted as the tools to perform that operation to remove the tumor. They are the ones properly motivated to complete the task. Sure, it would be very cool if the Zionists and other Exceptionalists were to step down from power and allow Humanists to take control, but as we’ve seen for 80 years—and we could go much further back in time—that’s not going to occur. Excise the proxy tumor and the Empire that succored it will be easier to reduce to a contained semi-failed state where its populous can be allowed to alter its being.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!