Is this the UN's last chance to take the right side in history?
"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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
28 minutes ago
- France 24
Trump says two weeks is 'maximum' for Iran decision
Trump added that Iran "doesn't want to talk to Europe," dismissing the chance of success in talks between European powers and Iran in Geneva on resolving the conflict between Israel and Iran. Trump also played down the possibility of asking Israel to halt its attacks, after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran would not resume talks with the United States until Israel relented. "I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," Trump told reporters when asked if he could decide to strike Iran before that. He added that the aim was to "see whether or not people come to their senses." Trump had said in a statement on Thursday that he would "make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks" because there was a "substantial chance of negotiations" with Iran. Those comments had been widely seen as opening a two-week window for negotiations to end the war between Israel and Iran, with the European powers rushing to talks with Tehran. But his latest remarks indicated that Trump could still make his decision before that if he feels that there has been no progress towards dismantling Iran's nuclear program. Trump dismissed the chances of Europe making a difference, saying the talks between Britain, France, Germany and EU diplomats and Tehran's foreign minister "didn't help." "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this," Trump told reporters as he arrived in Morristown, New Jersey. Asked if he would ask Israel to stop its attacks as Iran had asked, Trump said it was "very hard to make that request right now." "If somebody's winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody's losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens."
France 24
an hour ago
- France 24
Europe powers urge Iran to keep up diplomacy despite Israeli strikes
British, French, German and EU top diplomats held talks in Geneva with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, giving diplomacy a chance one week after Israel started its bombardment. "The good result today is that we leave the room with the impression that the Iranian side is ready to further discuss all the important questions," said German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul in a statement alongside his European counterparts. "It is of great importance that the United States takes part in these negotiations and the solution," he added. The statements read by all four top diplomats in their native languages after the talks expressed hope of further progress but did not make any mention of a breakthrough. Araghchi, making his first trip outside Iran since the bombardment began, said Tehran was ready to "consider diplomacy" again only once Israel's "aggression is stopped". "In this regard I made it crystal clear that Iran's defence capabilities are not negotiable," he said. "We support the continuation of discussion... and express our readiness to meet again in the near future," he said. 'Urgently find a solution' British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: "We are keen to continue ongoing discussions and negotiations with Iran, and we urge Iran to continue their talks with the United States." "This is a perilous moment, and it is hugely important that we don't see regional escalation of this conflict," he added. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said there "can be no definitive solution through military means to the Iran nuclear problem. Military operations can delay it but they cannot eliminate it". After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not rule out killing supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Barrot also warned: "It is illusory and dangerous to want to impose a regime change from the outside. It is up to the people to decide their own destiny." "We invited the Iranian minister to consider negotiations with all sides, including the United States, without awaiting the cessation of strikes, which we also hope for," he said. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas added: "Today the regional escalation benefits no-one. We must keep the discussions open." Iran's state-run IRNA news agency said earlier the Iranian delegation "emphasised that Iran has not left the negotiating table". Israel began its campaign on Friday last week saying the operation was aimed at halting Tehran from obtaining an atomic bomb, an ambition Iran denies having. Iran has in response launched strikes on Israel.
LeMonde
2 hours ago
- LeMonde
European powers urge Iran to continue nuclear talks with US
European powers on Friday, June 20, urged Iran to continue diplomacy with the United States to find a solution to the standoff over its nuclear program as Israel keeps up its bombardment of the Islamic Republic. "The good result today is that we leave the room with the impression that the Iranian side is ready to further discuss all the important questions," said German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul in a statement alongside his British, French and EU counterparts after talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. "It is of great importance that the United States takes part in these negotiations and the solution," he added. The statement read by all four top diplomats in their native languages after the talks expressed hope of further progress but did not make any mention of a breakthrough in the talks in Geneva. British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said, "We are keen to continue ongoing discussions and negotiations with Iran, and we urge Iran to continue their talks with the United States (...) This is a perilous moment, and it is hugely important that we don't see regional escalation of this conflict." French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said there "can be no definitive solution through military means to the Iran nuclear problem. Military operations can delay it but they cannot eliminate it." After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not rule out killing supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Barrot also warned, "It is illusory and dangerous to want to impose a regime change from the outside. It is up to the people to decide their own destiny." "We invited the Iranian minister to consider negotiations with all sides, including the United States, without awaiting the cessation of strikes, which we also hope for," he said. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said for her part that "today, the regional escalation benefits no one. We must keep the discussions open." Iran's state-run IRNA news agency said earlier that the Iranian delegation "emphasized that Iran has not left the negotiating table." Israel began its campaign on Friday last week, saying the operation was aimed at halting Tehran from obtaining an atomic bomb, an ambition Iran denies having. Iranian strikes launched in response have also caused damage in Israel.
