Waltz Takes Hormuz Fight to the UN
Washington is trying to turn Gulf shipping pressure into a Security Council test, but Russia and China hold the veto and can still block any binding move.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz says the Trump administration is pushing a Security Council resolution to condemn Iranian restrictions on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a move meant to put multilateral cover behind Washington’s maritime pressure campaign, 
The Hill reported Sunday. Waltz framed the issue as a basic rule of international order: “No country can do what Iran is doing in international waterways,” he told ABC’s This Week, according to The Hill.
Washington is trying to internationalize the fight
The leverage here is straightforward. Iran is using the Strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint for global energy flows — to extract costs from the U.S. and its partners. Washington is responding by trying to convert that coercion into a U.N. legal and diplomatic problem, not just a naval one. Marco Rubio said the draft, co-produced with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Qatar, would require Tehran to “cease attacks, mining, and tolling” and disclose where it placed sea mines, The Hill reported.
That matters because the U.S. is not acting alone. By lining up Gulf Arab partners, the administration is signaling that this is not just a U.S.-Iran dispute; it is a regional security issue with energy-market consequences. 
AP reported that the U.S. and its Gulf allies are threatening sanctions or other measures if Iran does not halt attacks, stop imposing “illegal tolls,” and disclose mine placements. That is a harder-edged draft than a simple condemnation, and it shows Washington is using the Council to try to lock in a deterrent threat.
The real vote is in Moscow and Beijing
The obstacle is not the text; it is the arithmetic. The Security Council has 15 members, but Russia and China can still kill the measure. That is why the administration is reportedly trying to narrow the draft after an earlier effort failed in April, when Moscow and Beijing blocked a resolution they said was biased against Iran, according to 
Reuters via Al Jazeera. If that history repeats, the U.S. will still have achieved one thing: forcing Russia and China to publicly defend Iranian behavior in a global chokepoint.
That is a useful political move for Washington. It turns the vote into a test of whether Moscow and Beijing want to be seen as tolerating the weaponization of a major shipping lane. It also gives the U.S. a stronger basis to argue that any disruption to shipping is not a local squabble but a challenge to freedom of navigation.
What changes on the ground
The diplomatic track is running alongside a military one. 
BBC reported that President Trump’s “Project Freedom” — the effort to escort vessels through the strait — was paused after a brief launch, underscoring how brittle the security picture remains. That pause does not reduce the stakes; it increases them. The U.S. is trying to secure passage without committing to an open-ended confrontation, while Iran is using disruption to keep pressure on energy prices and force negotiations.
The beneficiary, for now, is Tehran’s bargaining position: as long as shipping remains constrained, Iran retains leverage over global markets and over any talks on sanctions or nuclear terms. The loser is everyone depending on the strait, especially energy importers in Asia and commercial shippers caught between naval escort promises and actual risk.
What to watch next: whether the Council vote is filed this week, whether Russia and China signal a veto in advance, and whether the U.S. keeps pairing the diplomatic push with maritime escorts or lets the operation fade again.
