Is this the UN's last chance to take the right side in history?

Euronews

6 hours ago

"War is the continuation of policy with other means," Carl von Clausewitz's haunting observation has echoed through generations of statesmen, soldiers and scholars.
It is not a celebration of violence, but a sober reflection on the nature of power, diplomacy and human conflict.
Today, this quote is more than an abstract idea; it is a lens through which we must examine the paralysis of international institutions, particularly the United Nations, in the face of the Iranian nuclear threat, which went unabated for so long.
I have always believed in the importance and power of international organisations and have worked closely with UN bodies, participating in efforts that sought to uphold human rights, protect civilians, and foster international cooperation.
Like many who grew up in the shadow of World War II, I saw the UN as potentially a moral beacon, a structure built on the ashes of the crematoria, forged by a collective promise: Never Again.
Nevertheless, here we are.
In 2025, the global Jewish population is finally expected to reach its pre-Holocaust size. That should be a cause for hope, for reflection, and for solemn gratitude. Instead, the Jewish State is left to militarily confront a regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, that has never tried to hide its desire to annihilate Israel.
From its leaders' genocidal rhetoric to its funding of terrorist proxies and pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iran's intentions were never speculative. They are spoken clearly, broadcast openly and carried out violently.
Where was the outcry? Where was the moral clarity that once defined the post-war global order?
Israel has no aversion to diplomacy, but sometimes diplomacy must follow, not precede, the clear demonstration that Iran cannot and will not achieve its goals. For now, that lesson has to be taught on the battlefield.
As enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, 'Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations…'
Israel's actions are not acts of aggression; they are acts of lawful self-defence, taken to prevent another 7 October but on a far greater scale, which itself was the first act in this war of aggression by the Islamic Republic and its proxies.
Any institution truly committed to peace and security must recognise this right and support it, not condemn it out of fear or political convenience.
The world should see in Israel's determination to destroy the Iranian genocidal threat that diplomacy is a tool, not a virtue in itself. It must be wielded strategically, with eyes open.
The hard truth is that diplomacy only works when backed by strength, when the other side believes that refusal to compromise carries unacceptable consequences. Without that, negotiations become little more than performance, a charade designed to delay, deflect, and deceive. This is the lesson from Tehran going back decades.
This is also a lesson that institutions like the United Nations have tragically forgotten. Where I once placed deep faith in the UN's moral mission, I now watch with a heavy heart as that promise falters.
Working for many years with UN institutions, I witnessed the good they can do, but also the growing tendency toward equivocation, toward moral relativism, toward a fear of action against evil, of taking sides, even when the facts scream for judgment.
Time and again, the UN settled for diluted resolutions aimed at appeasing the unappeasable - an approach that prioritised false balance over moral clarity.
For too long, there had been no unequivocal condemnation of the Iranian regime's threats against Israel. No unambiguous denunciation of its proxies' murderous attacks on civilians.
Silence, or, worse, symmetry, dominates the global discourse, as though a liberal democracy defending itself against an existential threat is no different from a theocratic regime calling for genocide.
This silence is not neutral. It is a message, and it will not go unnoticed.
This moment is not simply about Israel and Iran. It is about whether the world still remembers the moral foundations upon which institutions like the UN were built. If the UN cannot stand against a regime that openly declares its intention to destroy a member state, and a people, then what, exactly, does it stand for?
Clausewitz's maxim is not an endorsement of war. It is a warning: when diplomacy loses credibility, war becomes the tool of last resort.
The United Nations must ask itself what role it played in this equation. It failed to take a stand against naked aggression and the constant shrill of incitement to genocide.
The Israel-Iran conflict is not just another diplomatic crisis. It is a test of the international system's moral spine. The Iranian regime was never made to understand that it could not succeed in its nuclear and annihilationist ambitions.
This is perhaps the UN's last opportunity to take the right side in the history of humanity. If it fails now, it risks irrelevance, or worse, complicity.
Israel has taught the international community a stinging lesson: for peace to prevail, it must be defended, not only with words, but with resolve and action.
Robert Singer is the chairman of the Center for Jewish Impact and the former CEO of World ORT and the World Jewish Congress.