U.N. Security Council Struggling as P5 Gridlock Deepens Global Tensions

The United Nations Security Council is once again under intense scrutiny as the five permanent members clash over Gaza, Ukraine, and Iran, challenging the body’s founders’ vision of a united, decisive security forum. In 2024 the council passed 41 resolutions, the fewest in more than three decades, underscoring how geopolitical fault lines now shape—and constrain—its work. The U.N. still operates on the ground with peacekeeping missions in places like South Sudan and Lebanon, but major crises often stall at the council’s doors.

Eight decades after World War II, the P5—the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China—were designed to oversee the postwar order with veto power. The structure was born of a belief that major powers could prevent large-scale wars by agreeing on a common framework. The early decades showed both paralysis and decisive action; during the Cold War, the council sometimes did not meet for months, yet it managed to shepherd conflicts such as Israel-Arab clashes when necessary. After the Cold War, cooperation surged: the council backed the 1991 U.S. campaign to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, and the U.N. oversaw a wave of peacekeeping operations and sanctions. Since the turn of the century, however, tensions over Iraq, Syria, and other flashpoints eroded trust, and Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine accelerated the decline in ties. The U.N. continues to maintain peacekeepers in parts of Africa and the Middle East, but the Security Council frequently gridlocks on major crises.

The council’s current disarray mirrors a broader shift to a multipolar world in which the five powers often disagree on core questions, even as they repeatedly converge to manage certain risks. The P5 still exchange views and sometimes cooperate on topics like aid operations and counterterrorism sanctions, but there is no expectation of a unified stance on major crises. In 2024, the disagreements among the P5 narrowed the space for a single, cohesive Security Council response and limited the council’s ability to shape global security outcomes. In parallel, the United Nations has continued its work elsewhere, with peacekeeping missions and sanctions regimes remaining tools even as Security Council gridlock complicates crisis resolution.

If the pattern of clashes endures, some observers say the P5 could still serve a practical function: a structured space where major powers can voice red lines, coordinate on limited operations, and avoid escalation through deconfliction. In this view, the council remains a platform for diplomacy in a volatile environment, albeit one whose power to force decisive action is often constrained by geopolitics. The current splits over Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran highlight how divergent interests shape the council’s behavior. In Ukraine, the United States has at times signaled openness to a new relationship with Russia, including proposals that downplay Kyiv’s territorial claims, a stance that unsettles European partners and raises questions about long-term alignment. In Gaza, Washington has repeatedly blocked resolutions criticizing Israel, while Britain, France, and others press for an immediate ceasefire and humanitarian access. The broader European stance is increasingly coordinated, but the council remains divided on how to balance humanitarian concerns with political lines. Separately, a conference outside the council is planned to recognize the State of Palestine, with France and Britain signaling such a move and other countries expected to follow; the United States has restricted Palestinian officials from visiting New York, underscoring the political sensitivity around Palestinian membership and state recognition. The question of Palestinian accession to U.N. membership remains blocked by U.S. veto.

On Iran, Britain and France—joined by Germany—pushed to restore United Nations sanctions that had been suspended under the 2015 nuclear deal, a move that enjoys support from the United States but faces skepticism from Russia. The five permanent members had supported the nuclear agreement, yet the path to reimposing sanctions is contested and reflects broader disagreements about how to balance enforcement with diplomacy. Russia has criticized European efforts to reimpose sanctions, arguing that past commitments by Europe to Iran were not fulfilled and that the region’s security architecture should not be rearranged unilaterally. The issue is tied to a complex mechanism designed to allow sanctions to snap back if Iran breaches the deal, a process that requires broad consensus among the P5 and their partners and remains unsettled.

The Trump era has also cast a long shadow over the council’s dynamics. The administration in Washington has shown a willingness to view the P5 as a steering committee capable of broader coordination with other major powers, a shift from the more cautious posture of the Biden years. In September 2024, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield announced support for adding two permanent seats for African nations and one seat rotated among small island developing states, a reform idea that would broaden representation but is not guaranteed to advance under a Trump administration. The remarks unsettled some governments that had hoped for a clearer U.S. commitment to reform, while others welcomed the idea as a potential path to greater legitimacy for the council. The mood in New York has shifted: Russia has toned down its anti-American rhetoric, and smaller and mid-sized states have paused reform campaigns while awaiting more concrete signals from Washington.

In sum, the Security Council’s current state reflects a broader geopolitical reality: major power competition coexists with pragmatic diplomacy. In a period of rising multipolarity, the council remains a venue where the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France can talk daily, even when they disagree. Whether it can expand its legitimacy or increase its effectiveness depends largely on whether reform efforts converge into a durable process of deconfliction and crisis management or fracture into competing blueprints. The P5, for all its flaws, may still offer a minimal public good—a forum where the world’s most powerful states can communicate, avert misunderstandings, and manage risk—even as it stops short of delivering rapid, decisive solutions to every crisis.