GTI-Iran, the victim of US-Israeli military aggression on February 28, 2026, was condemned by UN Security Council Resolution 2817 on March 13, 2026. Surprisingly, Iran is activating Article 51 of the UN Charter in retaliation. Will Resolution 2817 be able to save the US and Israel from defeat, and to what extent will this resolution impact US-Israel military power in the Middle East?
We will examine the perspectives of the US, Israel, the Gulf states, and Jordan. Resolution 2817 condemns Iran's attacks on residential areas and civilian objects in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan.
Key points of Resolution 2817 include: The UN strongly condemns Iran's attacks on the territory of the Gulf states and Jordan. The UN condemns attacks targeting residential areas and civilian objects. Demanding that Iran cease its threats that disrupt maritime trade. Assessing Iran's actions as a violation of international law and a threat to regional peace. Affirming the Gulf states' right to self-defense.
From Iran's perspective, Resolution 2817 is biased and unfair, protecting the US and Israel as the aggressors. Resolution 2817 is considered problematic for several logical reasons.
The resolution is considered unfair and unbalanced because it solely blames Iran for attacks on neighboring countries without examining the context that triggered the conflict, particularly the initial attack carried out by the opposing side.
Iran views its military actions in the region as a response to coordinated threats and airstrikes by the United States and Israel on its strategic targets.
Iran rejects the resolution's "despicable" narrative, considering it illegitimate Western political pressure.
Russia and China, as veto holders, abstained, believing it solely blames Iran and ignores the initial attack that triggered the conflict. Russia asserts that Iran has the right to self-defense. China's main reason for abstaining was that the resolution was considered unbalanced and represented a Western narrative, thus calling for a halt to military operations.
China also strongly condemned the US-Israeli attacks, which it claimed targeted Iranian civilians in the conflict.
Resolution 2817 is a US-Israel Resolution
Politically, Resolution 2817 clearly aims to demonstrate that the Gulf states and Jordan are on the side of the US and Israel, by positioning Iran as the aggressor, not the victim of US-Israel military aggression. The hope is that Iran will stop attacking US military bases and interests in the Gulf states and Jordan. Thus, Iran, deceived as in the last negotiations, will be easily conquered militarily by the US and Israel through the deceptive resolution.
Prof. Marandi, from Iran, drew an analogy: if China attacks the US through Canadian territory, is Canada considered neutral? Are the Gulf states and Jordan still considered neutral when the US and Israel attack Iran from their territory? Simply put, the Gulf states and Jordan have de facto attacked Iran, while the US and Israel have attacked both de jure and de facto.
Although the Gulf states and Jordan have not declared war on Iran, when their land and airspace are used by the US and Israel to attack Iran, the Gulf states and Jordan de facto become legitimate targets for Iran.
Resolution 2817 seeks to demonstrate the sovereignty of the Gulf states and Jordan, but this effort is a hollow statement, as it cannot prevent the US and Israel from using their territory to attack Iran. If this resolution is used to mobilize the troops of the Gulf states and Jordan to attack Iran, it will de facto be in a very weak military and political position, as it will strengthen and solidify the US-Israel coalition.
This scenario would open the possibility of an open war involving the entire people and rulers of the Gulf states and Jordan in attacking Iran, as well as Palestinian supporters throughout the region. Iran would automatically have a military following in the region, just as the Yemeni Houthis have attacked the territory and interests of Israel and its supporters.
The Absurdity of Civilian Areas?
Resolution 2817 condemned Iranian missile attacks targeting civilian areas without mentioning US military bases in regional countries. Civilian areas become unclear when US troops, after attacking Iran, abandon their military bases and then stay in hotels, government offices, and local residents.
Civilian areas become unclear when they include critical infrastructure that supports the survival of all the people in the region. If the US and Israel attack Iran in civilian areas such as elementary schools, hospitals, UNESCO-protected areas, or the South Pars gas field, Iran will certainly attack similar sites, such as the Ras Laffan LNG plant in Qatar, where ExxonMobile owns a 25% stake.
These civilian areas are certainly not within US territory, 12,000 km away, but within Israel, the Gulf states, and Jordan, as well as all areas used by the US and Israel.
This is the meaning of "total war" that Iran has been aiming for since the beginning of the 2/28 attacks. It is an existential war, a "life-or-death" war for the survival of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The war was declared by Seyyed Ali Khamenei himself, before the Iranian supreme leader was assassinated, and a regional war was launched ten minutes after his martyrdom.
If total war breaks out, civilian areas will no longer be sterile and become military targets. Total war will mobilize civilians as volunteers and conscripts. This war will encompass missiles, fighter jets, drones, tanks, ships, amphibious vessels, cyberspace, satellites, data centers, banks, and even nuclear weapons.
How strong is Resolution 2817 as a military force?
Resolution 2817 was issued on March 11, 2026, 12 days after the first attack on February 28. This means that the Gulf rulers were confused and did not take action from the first attack. The Gulf rulers already knew their territory was under attack by Iran, as Iran promised if the US-Israel attacked. If the Gulf rulers were ready to fight alongside the US-Israel in attacking Iran, they would have announced it on the first day.
Since the first attack, the Gulf rulers have been fully hopeful that the US-Israel scenario would succeed, as in Syria and Venezuela.
Given the facts of the fighting on the ground, it appears that Resolution 2817 will open the possibility of regime change not in Iran, but rather in the region. When US military bases, radars, air defense systems, data centers, gas and oil fields in the region are successfully destroyed by Iran, the regional military will also be crippled. The crippling of Israeli airspace will accelerate the region's military resistance against Israel. Attacking regional rulers, for the people of the region, is tantamount to attacking Israeli interests. The morality of war (holy war) will be on the side of the supporters of Palestine and Iran.
Saudi Arabia will change regime, when Yemen's Houtis attack ships supporting US-Israel-Gulf countries and others. Maybe the Yemeni people entered Saudi Arabia's territory, joining the Yemeni tribes in Saudi Arabia. Eighty percent of the Shia people of Bahrain will take over the kingdom of Bahrain. The people of Kuwait, the Emirates, Qatar, who are Shiite and pro-Palestinian, will take over the power of their respective kingdoms. Likewise, sixty percent of the Jordanian people of Palestinian descent will take over the Kingdom of Jordan.
This means that Resolution 2817, even if passed by the pro-US-Israel UN Security Council and regional countries, will have no significant military impact. Resolution 2817, unfair, biased, and legitimizing US-Israeli aggression, which Iran complains about, will slowly become a bad investment that will accelerate the collapse of the US-Israeli empire. Rubio's speech at the Munich conference announcing the US will revive a joint European empire will be significantly undermined. If NATO in the Middle East is crippled by Iran, NATO in the Pacific and Eastern Europe will also be rapidly crippled. The future of Russia and China will make defeating the US easier, thanks to Iran's proven local defense equipment.