Senator Marco Rubio’s latest push for a UN resolution on the Strait of Hormuz is a masterclass in performative geopolitics. It relies on the tired, "common sense" consensus that the United Nations is a broken machine simply because it allows for a veto. The narrative is predictable: Iran is the aggressor, the Strait is the world’s jugular, and any nation—namely Russia or China—that uses its veto power to block a resolution is a "test" of the UN's soul.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The veto isn’t a bug in the international system; it’s the features that keep the world from spiraling into total kinetic warfare. The push to moralize the Strait of Hormuz ignores the cold, hard mechanics of energy security and the reality of how global power is actually brokered. If you want to talk about the "test" of the UN, the real test is whether we can stop pretending that a piece of paper in New York can secure a 21-mile-wide waterway through sheer willpower.
The Myth of the "Rules-Based Order" in 21 Miles of Water
Every time a tanker is harassed or a drone is downed near the Strait, the same chorus of hawks demands a "unified international response." They treat the UN Security Council like a local HOA board that can simply vote to evict a nuisance neighbor.
The Strait of Hormuz moves roughly 20% of the world’s total petroleum liquids. It is not a theater for moral posturing; it is a pressurized valve. When Rubio and others decry the veto, they are essentially asking for the removal of the only mechanism that forces the Great Powers to actually negotiate rather than just steamroll one another into a World War.
The "lazy consensus" suggests that a veto-less UN would be more effective. Imagine that reality. A majority vote passes a resolution demanding aggressive naval intervention. Without the veto of a dissenting power like China—Iran's largest oil customer—you don't get "peace." You get an immediate, direct confrontation between the world's two largest economies. The veto is the diplomatic circuit breaker that prevents the whole house from burning down.
Why Energy Markets Fear a "Successful" Resolution
The financial world loves the idea of "stability," but they often confuse it with "compliance."
Markets don't actually want a UN resolution that picks a side. Why? Because the moment the UN formally sanctions or greenlights force in the Strait, the risk premium on every barrel of Brent crude explodes.
- Calculated Friction: Right now, the tension in the Strait is a known variable. It’s "managed" chaos.
- The Escalation Ladder: A UN resolution is a massive step up the escalation ladder. It forces Iran into a corner where their only response is to prove the resolution toothless.
- The Insurance Trap: The second a formal conflict is codified by a UN body, maritime insurance rates for VLCCs (Very Large Crude Carriers) go from "expensive" to "unobtainable."
I have seen analysts at major hedge funds pray for a veto. A veto maintains the status quo. The status quo is profitable. A "unified" UN response is a precursor to a blockade, and a blockade is a precursor to $250-per-barrel oil.
The Sovereignty Trap: UNCLOS vs. Reality
Rubio's argument hinges on the idea that the international community has a "right" to the Strait that supersedes local territorial claims. He points to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Here is the inconvenient truth: The United States hasn't even ratified UNCLOS.
Calling for a "test of the UN" based on a treaty you won't sign is the height of strategic irony. Furthermore, the Strait of Hormuz consists entirely of the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. While "transit passage" is a recognized legal concept, it is a fragile one.
The legalistic approach fails because it assumes Iran cares about the "rules-based order" more than it cares about its own survival. When you push for a resolution that labels one side as the sole aggressor, you remove their incentive to keep the taps open. You aren't "securing" the Strait; you are handing the person holding the matches a reason to strike them.
The China Factor: The Veto as a Safety Valve
Critics scream that China uses its veto to protect its "rogue" partners. Let’s look at the data instead of the rhetoric.
China is the world's largest importer of crude oil. They are more dependent on the Strait of Hormuz than the United States, which is now a net exporter of energy. If China vetoes a resolution, it isn't because they want the Strait to be blocked—it’s because they know a Western-led military intervention is the fastest way to ensure it gets blocked.
China’s veto is an act of extreme self-interest that happens to benefit the global economy. They are the "silent partner" in keeping the oil flowing because they refuse to let the US Navy turn the Persian Gulf into a private lake. Challenging the veto isn't about "fixing the UN"; it’s about trying to remove China’s seat at the table.
The Failure of Naval Escorts
The common solution offered alongside these resolutions is "increased maritime presence."
I’ve watched Western powers dump billions into "Operation Sentinel" and similar maritime security constructs. They are effectively using billion-dollar destroyers to play "chicken" with $20,000 fiberglass speedboats and $50,000 loitering munitions. It is an asymmetric nightmare.
The math of the Strait is simple:
- Width: The shipping lanes are only two miles wide in each direction.
- Weaponry: Modern anti-ship missiles (ASCMs) launched from the Iranian coastline have a flight time of less than 60 seconds to reach the center of the lane.
- Geography: You cannot maneuver a carrier strike group in those waters without putting it in a "kill box."
A UN resolution doesn't change the physics of a Harpoon missile or a drone swarm. It just gives the politicians a sense of accomplishment while the sailors on the ground deal with the increased target on their backs.
Stop Asking the UN to Be a Policeman
The fundamental question Rubio asks is: "Is the UN capable of acting?"
The better question is: "Why do we want it to?"
The UN was never designed to be a global police force that enforces the will of a simple majority. It was designed to prevent the five biggest kids on the playground from killing each other. Every time we try to use it as a tool of moral enforcement, we weaken its actual purpose.
When you attack the veto, you are attacking the only thing that keeps the "Great Power Competition" from turning into "Great Power War."
If you want to secure the Strait of Hormuz, you don't do it with a resolution in New York. You do it through back-channel diplomacy, regional power-sharing, and acknowledging that Iran—like it or not—is a permanent fixture of the geography.
The High Cost of "Winning"
If Rubio gets his way and the UN passes a resolution without a veto, what happens the next morning?
The US and its allies are then legally and "morally" obligated to enforce it. Enforcement means boarding ships. Boarding ships means firefights. Firefights mean the closure of the Strait.
You "win" the vote and lose the global economy in the same afternoon.
The veto is the only thing preventing this catastrophic "success." We should be grateful for the gridlock. It is the only buffer between the current manageable tension and a total systemic collapse of the energy market.
Security in the Strait of Hormuz isn't found in a "unified" UN. It’s found in the messy, frustrating, and often ugly reality of the veto-driven stalemate. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling a fantasy that the world can't afford to buy.
Stop trying to "fix" the UN's paralysis. It’s the only thing keeping us from a sprint toward the cliff.
