Is the UN Becoming Irrelevant in Preventing Modern Conflicts Like the U.S.–Iran Crisis?

Can the UN still prevent wars, or has it become a ceremonial club for the powerful?”

Is the UN Becoming Irrelevant in Preventing Modern Conflicts Like the U.S.–Iran Crisis?

The escalating U.S.–Iran crisis, characterized by direct military confrontations and profound geopolitical shifts, has inevitably turned the global spotlight on the United Nations. Amidst the smoke rising from Iranian oil depots and the interception of missiles over Israeli skies in June 2025, a critical question emerges: Is the UN, the supposed bedrock of global peace and security, becoming irrelevant in preventing and resolving modern conflicts? While the organization faces undeniable challenges, a closer look reveals a more nuanced reality of persistent relevance, albeit within severe constraints.

The UN's Core Mandate: An Ideal Under Strain Founded in 1945 after the devastation of World War II, the United Nations' primary purpose is to maintain international peace and security, foster cooperation among nations, and protect human rights. Its Security Council, comprising 15 members with five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) holding veto power, is the main organ tasked with preventing or resolving conflicts through sanctions, peacekeeping operations, or military action. However, this ideal framework is frequently strained by contemporary geopolitical realities.

The world today faces unprecedented challenges, from climate change and pandemics to poverty and inequality, all demanding collective action. The UN system is designed to provide global public goods and protect global commons. Yet, the efficacy and legitimacy of global governance and multilateralism are under immense pressure due to rising unilateralism, protectionism, and a palpable erosion of trust. Angela Kane, former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, noted in March 2021 that the optimism for international cooperation that followed the Cold War has dissipated, compounded by increasingly aggressive foreign policies and challenges to human rights. This sets a challenging backdrop for the UN's role in mitigating conflicts like the U.S.-Iran crisis.

The U.S.-Iran Crisis: A Litmus Test for UN Diplomacy The recent escalation between the United States, Israel, and Iran serves as a stark example of the UN's current predicament. The current round of escalation began on June 13, 2025, when Israel launched unilateral military strikes against Iran, targeting nuclear facilities, missile factories, and senior military officials, including the commander-in-chief of Iran's military and the IRGC commander-in-chief. Israel described this as a "last-resort effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons".

A week later, on June 21, 2025, the United States directly intervened, with President Donald Trump authorizing attacks on three Iranian nuclear sites in Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz using bunker-buster bombs. This marked a historic moment, as Trump became the first U.S. president to attack another country's nuclear program and explicitly join Israel in such an offensive. Iran swiftly retaliated on June 23, launching a missile attack on U.S. forces in Qatar, though no casualties were reported. Iran also launched 180 ballistic missiles against Israel in October 2024, followed by Israel's largest direct attack on Iran, targeting air defenses and missile production facilities.

In response to these grave developments, the UN Security Council convened an emergency session on June 22, 2025. UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed grave alarm, warning that the region was "on the brink of a deadly downward spiral" and risked "descending into a rathole of retaliation after retaliation". He emphasized that "diplomacy must prevail" and called for a return to "serious, sustained negotiations on the Iran nuclear program". IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi confirmed visible damage at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz, stressing that "armed attacks on nuclear facilities should never take place" and that IAEA inspectors required access to the sites for damage assessment.

However, the international community's response within the UN was sharply divided. The U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea defended the strikes as decisive action to dismantle Iran's enrichment capacity and protect allies, warning Iran against further escalation. Iran's ambassador, Ali Bahreini, condemned the attacks as a "clear and flagrant breach of international law" and asserted Iran's right to self-defense, stating the timing, nature, and scale of its response would be decided by its armed forces.

Russia, China, and Pakistan unequivocally condemned the U.S. strikes, labeling them a "gross violation of international law" and proposing a resolution for an "immediate and unconditional ceasefire". They criticized the U.S. for its "complete contempt for the position of the international community" and for potentially opening a "Pandora's box". Conversely, close U.S. allies like the UK, France, and Germany, while not participating in the U.S./Israeli strikes, urged de-escalation and a return to diplomacy, reiterating that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons. Gulf Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, expressed deep concern over the escalation and called for restraint, highlighting the immense risks to regional stability and global energy markets.

This immediate, fragmented response underscores the core issue: when major powers are directly involved or have strong vested interests, the UN's capacity for unified, decisive action is severely hampered.

The Veto: A Blessing and a Curse? The veto power held by the Security Council's five permanent members is arguably the most significant structural impediment to the UN's effectiveness in preventing conflicts. Critics often decry it as the "most undemocratic element of the UN" and a primary cause of inaction on egregious international crimes, as it effectively shields permanent members and their allies from UN action. For instance, the U.S. has used its veto 88 times, with 50 of those instances protecting Israel. Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) holds the record with 129 vetoes, and since 1992, has been the most frequent user.

While supporters argue that the veto prevents the UN from undertaking actions that the great powers would resist, thereby avoiding the League of Nations' fate of irrelevance due to lack of universality, its current application often paralyzes the Council. The current crisis exemplifies this, with Russia, China, and the U.S. deeply entrenched in their positions, making consensus on a strong, unified response virtually impossible. The inability to pass an "immediate and unconditional ceasefire" resolution, despite wide support, is a direct consequence of this.

Geopolitical Fault Lines: Eroding Consensus Beyond the formal veto, deteriorating geopolitical relations among the P5 actively undermine the Security Council's ability to handle crises effectively. The ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza have particularly strained relations between Russia and the Western permanent members, leading to accusations of double standards and a broader erosion of trust. This lack of common vision for multilateralism was further highlighted in the negotiations leading up to the "Summit of the Future" in September 2024, where major transformations to the UN's peace and security work appeared unlikely.

When a major power perceives its core interests to be at stake, or when it backs an ally, the spirit of collective security envisioned in the UN Charter is replaced by a "theater of the absurd," as the Russian envoy described it. This breakdown in consensus not only affects specific conflict resolutions but also influences other areas, such as the monitoring of sanctions (e.g., North Korea's sanctions regime).

Financial Woes and Future Uncertainty The UN's operational capacity is also threatened by a severe liquidity crisis, largely due to member states delaying or defaulting on their obligatory budget contributions. Secretary-General Guterres warned in January 2024 that the organization could run out of cash by August. The prospect of a second Trump administration, which previously slashed the UN peacekeeping budget and is viewed with concern by senior UN officials, adds another layer of financial uncertainty. Such cuts would compound existing budget problems and impact the UN's ability to deploy resources for peacekeeping or humanitarian aid.

Beyond the Headlines: Where the UN Still Matters Despite these profound challenges, declaring the UN entirely "irrelevant" would be a mischaracterization. Even when paralyzed on high-profile, major-power-driven conflicts, the UN continues to play an indispensable role in myriad other areas:

• Humanitarian Lifeline: UN aid agencies remain crucial in providing life-saving assistance in conflict zones. In Gaza, for instance, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is described as the "only viable means available to deliver life-saving humanitarian aid in sufficient quantities". Even under continuous assault and facing funding freezes from some donors, UNRWA continues its vital work, highlighting the UN's unique capacity where others cannot or will not act.
• Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding: In places less dominated by major power rivalries, UN peacekeeping missions and peacebuilding initiatives continue. The UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) maintains a peacekeeping presence on the Israel-Lebanon border, serving as a critical back channel for communication and a buffer against wider escalation, despite its own challenges. In Sudan, the UN envoy, Ramtane Lamamra, has worked to re-establish the UN's diplomatic standing by engaging warring parties and regional powers, even facilitating humanitarian corridors. The UN Peacebuilding Commission and Fund also work collegially with troubled states on conflict prevention and post-conflict recovery, providing essential, albeit limited, funding and support.
• A Universal Diplomatic Platform: The UN remains the sole venue where all 193 member states can make their voices heard on global crises. Even when the Security Council is gridlocked, the General Assembly has increasingly stepped in to address crises, as seen with resolutions on Ukraine and Palestine. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice has gained prominence as a forum for international law disputes, such as South Africa's case against Israel concerning Gaza.
• Norm Setting and International Law: The UN plays a critical role in promoting global norms and values like democracy, human dignity, and the rule of law. It continues to underline the importance of international humanitarian law, particularly regarding the protection of civilians and the prohibition of attacks on nuclear facilities. Recent efforts, like the humanitarian exemption for sanctions against terrorist groups (Resolution 2664), demonstrate the UN's ongoing ability to mitigate the unintended consequences of security measures on civilian populations.
• Addressing Transnational Threats: Beyond direct conflict, the UN remains vital in coordinating responses to shared global challenges that transcend national borders, such as climate change, pandemics, poverty, and human rights violations, issues no single nation can tackle alone.

Pathways to Renewal: Reforms and Resilience Recognizing its shortcomings, the UN is actively pursuing reforms. Secretary-General Guterres's "Our Common Agenda" report (2021) outlines recommendations to strengthen global governance and multilateral cooperation, including a renewal of the social contract, a focus on future generations, and a more networked, inclusive, and effective multilateralism. The "Summit of the Future" in 2024 aimed to discuss these overhauls, even if major reforms of the Security Council or nuclear disarmament proved elusive.

The push for a review of UN peacekeeping and peacebuilding architecture in 2025 also reflects a commitment to adapting to changing global dynamics. These efforts, while incremental, aim to foster more innovative and tailored responses to instability, as exemplified by the Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission in Haiti, which, though facing funding shortfalls, represents a new approach to international policing.

Conclusion: An Indispensable, Imperfect Forum The U.S.–Iran crisis, with its high stakes and complex web of international actors, undoubtedly casts a long shadow over the UN's perceived capacity for conflict prevention. The organization's structural limitations, particularly the P5 veto, and the deepening geopolitical fissures among major powers mean that direct intervention in such a conflict remains highly improbable. When national interests supersede collective security, the UN's "primary responsibility" for peace can indeed appear to be sidelined.

However, to label the UN "irrelevant" would be a gross oversimplification. Its role shifts from a direct peace enforcer in major-power conflicts to an indispensable convener, humanitarian actor, norm-setter, and facilitator of cooperation on a vast array of global issues. It continues to serve as a vital platform for dialogue, even when such dialogue is fraught with tension and disagreement. As long as global challenges are interconnected and demand collective solutions, the UN, with all its imperfections, remains the most universal and comprehensive forum for multilateral cooperation.

The future of the UN's relevance will hinge not just on its internal reforms, but crucially, on the political will of its member states—especially the powerful ones—to prioritize collective security over narrow national interests and to uphold the principles of the UN Charter. The choice between wider war and a return to diplomacy, as Guterres eloquently stated, is ultimately one that member states must make. The UN provides the framework and the mechanisms; it is up to the world to utilize them effectively.

Want to Explore More on Global Diplomacy?

Why PM Modi Declined Trump’s Invite — A Diplomatic Signal to the U.S.
Discover how India's subtle refusal sent a strong message about strategic autonomy.
👉 [Read the full story ]

Iran–Israel Conflict 2025: India’s Silent Diplomacy
Uncover how India balances its regional ties amid rising Middle East tensions.
👉 [Explore the analysis ]

Kailash Mansarovar Yatra Resumes — A Soft Power Revival?
What this historic pilgrimage route's reopening means for India-China diplomacy.
👉 [Read the latest update ]