Premium Content

Opposition to UN Security Council Statement on Iran Embassy Attack in Syria

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On Wednesday, the United States, Britain, and France expressed their opposition to a Russian-drafted statement at the United Nations Security Council. The statement aimed to condemn an attack on Iran’s embassy compound in Syria, which Tehran has attributed to Israel, a close ally of Washington.

The Security Council’s press statements require consensus among its 15 members. During a meeting on Tuesday, diplomats from the US, France, and Britain highlighted the lack of clarity surrounding the events that occurred in Damascus on Monday. As a result, no consensus was reached among council members.

Russia’s deputy UN Ambassador, Dmitry Polyanskiy, criticized what he perceived as double standards by the Western nations. He emphasized their practical approach to legality and order in the international context, contrasting it with mere declarative statements.

Historically, the UN Security Council has issued statements condemning attacks on diplomatic premises. In this case, the European Union joined in condemning the strike, emphasizing the need to respect the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises and personnel. The EU also called for restraint from all countries involved.

The US clarified that it had not confirmed the status of the building struck in Damascus. However, if it were a diplomatic facility, they would express concern.

Israel, although not claiming responsibility for the attack, was involved. The strike destroyed a consular building adjacent to the main embassy complex, resulting in the deaths of seven members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

Iran accused Israel of violating the UN Charter and international law, citing various conventions. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations define premises as buildings, parts of buildings, or land used for diplomatic or consular missions. These conventions declare such premises “inviolable,” while also emphasizing that they should not be used in any manner incompatible with diplomatic and consular functions.

Subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Videos