Yves here. Korybko presents the obvious, but nevertheless-needs-to-be-said answer to his headline question: follow the money. Western sanctions have succeeded in isolating Iran economically, so few country have any useful commercial ties, which is the exact opposite of the position of the Gulf States. The US has succeeded in rendering Iran almost friendless…save for the great powers, Russia and China, and the seen-as-pariah state of North Korea.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
The lack of any meaningful economic relationship with Iran predetermined that most countries would support any resolution against it if unofficially forced to choose between the Islamic Republic and the Gulf Kingdoms to whom they’re dependent to some degree on energy imports.
The UNSC just adopted a resolution condemning Iran for its attacks against the Gulf Kingdoms, including against civilian and residential areas, after Russia and China abstained just like they abstained from last fall’s resolution on Gaza due to their Arab partners’ support for these two measures. Russia proposed a second draft that its permanent representative said was “aimed at urgently de-escalating the situation… (and is) simple, direct and unequivocal, and intentionally does not name any parties to the conflict.”
The US predictably vetoed it, hence why Russia and China then felt compelled to abstain from the initial draft, but this nevertheless showed that Russia did its best to support Iran at the UNSC. As for the resolution that ultimately passed, it was backed by a whopping 135 countries, which Al Jazeera’s corresponded described as “the largest number of countries ever to cosponsor a Security Council draft resolution.” The reasons for this historic condemnation of Iran are pretty straightforward.
Simply put, most of the world is dependent to some degree on energy imports from the Gulf Kingdoms, while Iran provides pretty much nothing to most of them since few apart from China are willing to defy the US’ secondary sanctions threats by significantly trading with it. They therefore stand to lose much more from the disruption of Gulf Kingdoms’ energy exports caused by Iran’s attacks against them than from the joint US-Israel campaign against Iran that’s devastating the Islamic Republic.
The international community’s lack of any meaningful economic relationship with Iran at the start of the Third Gulf War sharply contrasts with the relationship that they had with Russia at the start of NATO’s proxy war on it through Ukraine that entered its most intense phase four years ago. Back then and still to this day to a large extent, many of them were dependent to some degree on its agricultural, energy, and/or fertilizer exports, ergo why they all in some way defied the US’ secondary sanctions threats.
Even though most of the international community voted to condemn Russia at the UNGA, they all still retained some level of their commodity imports from it, including the EU. They and their US patron did agree to a so-called “price cap” for limiting Russia’s oil profits, but the point is that even they acknowledged that the world could not continue to function if these exports were instantly cut off. The US has since tried to wean everyone off of them, but this is no longer possible amidst the global oil crisis.
In any case, this insight enables one to retrospectively conclude that the World Majority’s defiance of the US’ secondary sanctions threats vis-à-vis maintaining trade with Russia was driven by their self-interests, not by their collective commitment to some nebulous multipolar principle. Likewise, the same goes for why most of them just condemned Iran at the UN by cosponsoring the latest Security Council Resolution, which was also in their interests to do no matter how much it disappointed some multipolar enthusiasts.
At the end of the day, the lack of any meaningful economic relationship with Iran predetermined that the majority of the world would support any resolution against it if unofficially forced to choose between the Islamic Republic and the Gulf Kingdoms to whom they’re dependent to some degree on energy imports. This is the cold reality of International Relations, which is an unpleasant reminder to the well-intentioned activists who want to change the way that the world works that this is a lot easier said than done.
39 comments
Comments are closed.
For the Gulf states it is a CYA move. Give these states a few weeks and they will go cap in hand to BRICS, Global South and some of the European states begging for support against the repercussions of Trump, et al’s blind lashing out.
UAE and Egypt (not a Gulf country but still an Israel vassal) are already core BRICS members, along with Iran.
As Yves keeps saying, BRICS is a pretty loose bloc at best. It’s not a coherent group you could go begging to.
BRICS does not even have a budget.
there is a substantial attempt in the US, even among sanders-folk, to paint Russia as part of the global evil being done to the established and intended AI/capitalist norms of the world. i too would have preferred a straight veto, but it’s wise to play it this way, the same way it was wise to lie to Witkoff that Russia is not providing targeting to Iran (in literal terms, not a lie, intel has many other functions.) this is an existential, civilizational war and all know it. hence, maskirovka is necessarily employed, nowhere near the level at which america lies to the world and propagandizes its objectives.
Helmerites should be placed on the backbench. if one looks at the content of the Russian rationale for abstention, it pulls no punches.
also, it’s clear that a veto would increase the western howls for new rules that would remove the veto altogether, which Trump has tried to run around with his ‘Board of Peace’. no need to incite. defuse the narrative.
hoki-haya: “there is a substantial attempt in the US, even among sanders-folk, to paint Russia as part of the global evil being done to the established and intended AI/capitalist norms of the world.”
Indeed. Yesterday, I was checking the news when I ran across a clip of Mehdi Hasan interviewing Kat Abughazaleh about a leaked memo that she is an interventionist. This is local politics — but it speaks to your point. Abughazaleh is running in the Illinois 9th congressional district, and I still vote for my U.S. rep as a resident of Chicago. So I voted for her.
Yet her response to the criticism of being an interventionist is exactly as you state: Russia-mania and paranoia. She floated that bullshit idea of confiscating the oligarchs’ money to fund Ukraine. Yves Smith spent ten or more days here at Naked Capitalism disabusing all of us of the viability of that scam. Euroclear spoke up, the Belgian prime minister cleared his throat, and cowardly Ursula von der Leyen had to slink off.
Yet here we are months later in a U.S. congressional campaign: And the same shit shows itself.
I don’t fully regret my mailed-in ballot for Abughazaleh. (When the alternative is Daniel Biss…)
She’s just one more Democrat pre-programmed and, if I may, self-pre-programmed to fail. The difficulty is that on half-rations such as these, sooner or later the body politic dies of starvation.
As to the UN, returning to your comment: Neoliberalism, it’s all about the benjamins.
I’m always amazed that so many of the tech nerds commenting on Hacker News, SlashDot, etc., are completely into the “evil Putin regime” killing billions of its soldiers in “meat wave” attacks in a war it can’t win in Ukraine. They must be fully immersed in a media ecosystem that prevents reality from slipping in at all, in spite of supposedly being smart people. The lie factories have the American population largely in thrall, and that seems to be the Empire’s biggest strength.
I read Ars Technica to see what the tech bois consider important. Hardly a day goes by without an anti-Russian article appearing. It’s almost like reading The Guardian!
Oh, it can be even worse.
Just this week: I have a friend here who is very smart (PhD, Fulbright Scholar) who opined: “I don’t think Russia is evil, although I do think Putin personally, like Trump, is a morally bereft person, but much smarter and more temperate.”
So I went into the “not one inch further east,” v NATO expansion, Munich Security Conference, Maidan coup, Minsk 1+2, Merkel Hollande Poroshenko chortling about their deception, Collective West kicking over Istanbul settlement table and more story, plus no evidence that Putin had ever hoovered off public monies, despite many many Western claims otherwise. Said that PhD’s beliefs reflected consuming too much propaganda,
No joke, I get this as a reply:
This led to the mother of all takedown replies, starting with Eddie Bernays in his 2026 book Propaganda taking a front page of the New York Times and determining half its articles to be propaganda.
If PhD actually watches the BBC series The Century of the Self, which I also invoked, there is a hope of becoming adequately skeptical of mainstream outlets.
You know the old joke about Russian v US propaganda –
A Russian and American are seated together on a plane heading to the US.
USian: What are you coming to the states for?
Russian: To study US propaganda which is the best in the world.
USian: The US government doesn’t use propaganda on its citizens.
Russian: Exactly!
OMG, the old Soviet joke come to life. Well, I guess there is still one area where Putin must envy the US.
much appreciate your comment. i will affirm that i admire sanders, his office, believe we can work out the worms, and highly respect the dialogue he attempts to initiate and maintain:
https://youtu.be/-CHIR1J8Zq8?si=AQ-Ere9r9xbc-m_0
personally, living out here neighboring iran, i can say that via academic conferences, musical performances etc, i have rarely met a more liberated and intelligent people.
Just in case you needed any more evidence that the UN is feckless, has outlived its purpose and abandoned the spirit of its charter, and serves only global capital. Time for it to go.
Agreed. Clearly compromised, the UN’s despicable action is all about the Benjamin’s, not world peace. A sad day.
A close family member of mine is currently in Colombia with the UN mission there. She, along with others, is risking her life in what has so far been a reasonably successful effort to reduce the level of violence there and establish a law-abiding society following the agreement with the FARC.
I am sorry but I very much resent people saying that the UN is a waste of time when good work is being done by many members of its staff in dangerous parts of the world.
It is easy to fall in with right-wing tropes about international organisations being useless if you do not have a detailed knowledge of what is being done by UN staff at ground level around the world, frequently at risk to their lives (do you know how many UN staff have been killed in Gaza – hundreds).
Criticise the actions of government representatives in the General Assembly and Security Council if you want to but do not condemn an entire organisation (which could not be easily replaced) simply on the basis of stories in the headlines. There is much work done at ground level which is worthwhile.
https://harpers.org/archive/2025/06/wishful-thinking-united-nations-amanda-chicago-lewis/
Those people you mention can do good work in a new institution that is not compromised by vicious capitalist fanatics. Yes, it might be hard to create something new, but it needs to be done.
I heard the same when Trump killed off USAID (if he actually did) – but they do such good humanitarian work! Think of the children! USAID’s main business is overthrowing governments that don’t bow to the US. Could not the US give out humanitarian aid without the regime change? I argue that they could. Of course what Trump did is scratch the humanitarian aid and move the regime change ops elsewhere – not trying to credit that lunatic with anything good here.
Time for some new global institutions – ones that are not founded by the West. They’ve had their chance and done nothing except sow death and destruction everywhere for the better part of a century.
Bollocks. We have heard the many stories on how the uS bullies reps on how to vote at the UN. Including threats to their families. This vote is meaningless. I want to see a vote in which a UN sanctioned forced is established, like in the Korean war. Then we will be talking support for the US…
Just goes to prove the old adage that countries do not have friends but only interests. Few countries would fight for Iran at the UN for fear that Trump would target them with 50% tariffs or some such. Better to nod yes to this vote which in the long run will have no real consequence. I mean, the UN is hardly going to declare the Gulf war a police action and mobilize a multinational army like they did in the Korean war after all.
The irony is that the resolution is a “moral” thing, which as the article said is based completely on interests calculations, and without a moral foundation, and then it is toothless, that is, unable to do anything about “interests” at all.
The UN is like the UNreality. It’s difficult to figure out what they are trying to do.
The UN…
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And then, on the other hand, countries (including Russia and China), have developed meaningful economic relationships with Israel.
I propose to amend your accurate comment: “..relationships with the rubble that was Israel (industry/economy and PMC that fled). The problem if you have no strategic depth (and live by the sword).
UN did not condemn Russia, but strongly deplored the SMO. And said the oarties should implement Minsk.
Iran’s lack of oligarchs profiting from foreign deals is a strength, not a weakness. This is why they can fight with all their might.
They’ve had their “back channel” oligarchs to contend with.
The article doesn’t even provide a link to the vote list.
And I think the lack of even mentioning the threats / pressure from US is a large possibility, given trumps use of sanctions and all sorts of stuff to get what he wants.
Sure shows the UN as being all but useless anymore. Sad.
My comment the other day (Iran thread I think):
Is there a prediction market bet for China and Russia abstention?
Hopefully some readers made bank on that!
I suspect the actual answer is a bit simpler. Whatever the reality, all nations continue to uphold the central tenet of the UN’s founding ideology, that nations should refrain from aggressive acts against each other. To veto the motion, or even to vote against it as a non-permanent member, would amount to undermining this position. For Russia and China, who have made a big thing of the UN and international law, and of acting on a higher moral plane than the West, this would be an impossible situation: thus, abstaining. It’s true that in the first instance the attacks were against US facilities (one of many things that the Charter and international law don’t cover) but they are still attacks against the territory of another nation, and more recent attacks have been squarely threatened and directed against non-US targets.
The other point is simply that Iran isn’t very popular internationally, and has made no special effort to make itself liked. Plenty of countries are happy to see Iran take the Americans down a peg or two, but they’re also happy to see Iran getting beaten up at the same time.
Passing resolutions condemning Iran without bothering to mention that the Zionist entity and the US shot first is what undermines the central tenets of the UN. Or do the rules not apply to the Zionist entity who gets a ‘get out of jail free’ card for every single atrocity?
Also, all those countries who have become “popular” internationally (or better said, with the West) did so by becoming subjugated vassals who gave up their own sovereignty. Let’s see the UK or France, for example, try to do anything on the international stage that goes against US wishes. They’ll be brought to heel like the poodles they are, UN tenets be damned.
You’re entitled to your views, though most nations would disagree with you. My point was simple enough: China and Russia are positioning themselves as nations upholding international law and the UN Charter, so they can’t vote against a motion which is in the spirit of it, whatever behaviour is happening elsewhere. And any other nation that voted against it would open itself to the same charge, irrespective of whataboutism, That’s basic international relations, and not that hard to understand, I think.
I agree on China and Russia, and I certainly see why they play along for the time being. In fact I’d say Russia’s actions toward Ukraine showed a greater respect for the spirit and the letter of UN regulations than anything I’ve seen recently from the Western “rules based order” – rules for thee but not for me!
What I disagree vehemently with is that this recent resolution had anything to do with the now quaint notion of “international law”. That went out the window by allowing the Zionist entity to run roughshod over it with impunity. The UN is a joke.
This makes me wonder if Cuba being more popular is going to stop Rubio from getting his regime change during the Trump administration through this blockade that Cuba is under.
Because if other countries don’t help Cuba I have to wonder if there would have been any point in Iran making a special effort to be liked when none of them will help when Cuba is in trouble.
I wasn’t talking about invasions. Other Islamic nations have built mosques and funded Islamic charities, not to mention buying football teams, sponsoring sports events, propping up the property market etc. and gaining a lot of soft power in the process. Irans’s attitude has been, Nobody likes us, we don’t care. Actions have consequences.
Iran does do things like building mosques and funding Islamic charities, but I think those efforts are mostly related to Shia not Sunni. There may be some difference in how Shia and Sunni do these things.
Iran does host international sporting competitions, but I don’t know how much Iran is involved in sports outside Iran.
As for things like propping up the property market, I don’t think Iran has ever had the financial freedom of an oil dictatorship.
I get the point and it makes sense, in the narrow framing and decontextualized format it was brought to the floor.
I am curious how could have Iran act to make friends given your assertion that “and has made no special effort to make itself liked”. So we had the Revolution, in which Iran was pretty much against the world, who supported Iraq. And then that pressure became cold instead of hot. Who would have dared to be friends with Iran, other than Russia and China (and NK), given the US stance? As with the vote, I think this sentence is also decontextualized…
Iran wants to be friendly!
CONSORTIUMNEWS
comment by JOE LAURIA + entire UN-SC session
UN Security Council Blames Iran
March 12, 2026
Russia and China failed to veto a resolution that blatantly blamed the victim rather than the aggressor in the war against Iran. Joe Lauria reports.
https://consortiumnews.com/2026/03/12/watch-un-security-council-blames-iran/
“(…)The most startling word in the resolution is “unprovoked,” which any clear-eyed observer would see as an out-and-out lie.
It was sheer audacity to include that word when the whole world can see that the United States and Israel carried out an unprovoked attack and that Iran is defending itself according to the U.N. Charter. The demand that Iran stop using its proxies to help defend itself is egregious.
This resolution brings further shame on the Security Council after its endorsement last November of the genocidal Trump/Kushner takeover of Gaza.(…)”
p.s. Whether or not realpolitik – this is another nail in the coffin.
After all the very idea of intern. law is to uphold and protect indealist principles against cold material interests.
So this could also be called a litmus test which failed.
Unsurprisingly.
No condemnation of the attack by US/ISR?
By any measure that´s a very sinister joke and evidence of historic crossroads where we find ourselves…
the only glimmer of hope is the obvious CYA quality of this by the many small and medium powers who rely on the fossiles.
So do i get on the train Beijing to Moscow this fall or not?
Most of the world does not care. Most of the world would not care if they are colonized again either. I live in India and the USA, and am surprised how the educated Indians say the oft-repeated line, “but Iran does not treat its people well”. My sample size is small, but this is amongst the educated class in India. Amongst the masses, it is the other way around – they think America and Israel overreached.