The United States and its Gulf Arab allies have quietly excised any reference to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter from the draft Security Council resolution on the Strait of Hormuz, diplomatic sources confirmed this week. The removal of language that would have authorised military enforcement marks a significant concession by Washington and its partners, who had initially sought a more muscular mandate to confront Iran’s actions in the strategic waterway. The revised text, co-sponsored by Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Qatar, now urges Iran to cease “all attacks and threats” against commercial shipping, disclose and remove naval mines, and allow the establishment of a humanitarian corridor under UN auspices for essential goods such as fertilisers. But it grounds its demands in the Law of the Sea rather than the Security Council’s enforcement powers, a shift that analysts in London note reflects the difficulty of building a consensus among the council’s permanent members.

From Washington, the administration of US President Donald Trump has framed the initiative as a necessary defence of the principle of freedom of navigation. The US ambassador to the UN, Mike Waltz, described Iran’s recent behaviour as a flagrant violation of international norms, pointing to reports that Tehran has been levying illegal fees on passing vessels and has established a so-called Gulf Strait Administration to regulate traffic. Viewed from the Gulf capitals, the resolution is both a signal of solidarity with the US and a hedging move. Officials in Abu Dhabi stressed two key provisions: opposition to what they called “financial extortion of ships” and a demand that Iran account for the exact location of its mines. Saudi Arabia’s envoy called the strait “the main artery of global trade”, while Kuwait and Qatar expressed strong support for the draft, warning that previous disruptions had already caused severe economic ripples.

Tehran’s reaction has been swift and dismissive. Iran’s UN ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, described the resolution as “deeply flawed, one-sided and politically motivated”. He insisted that Iran retains full control over the strait and that the only durable solution lies in ending what he termed the “maritime siege” against Iran and restoring normal traffic. Independent observers in the region caution that the resolution, even in its softened form, may struggle to secure the nine votes needed for adoption, especially given likely veto threats from both China and Russia. The elimination of the Chapter VII trigger removes the immediate risk of escalation, but the underlying contest over who controls the world’s most important oil chokepoint remains unresolved. What the debate in New York reveals is that neither side is prepared to back down, and the coming weeks will test whether diplomatic language can substitute for naval posturing in the Gulf. The final vote, expected later this month, will thus serve as a barometer of the Security Council’s ability – or inability – to manage a confrontation that holds consequences for energy markets and maritime security far beyond the Middle East.