The United Nations—a grand institution created in 1945 with the hopeful goal of keeping the peace and stopping people from throwing bombs at each other. Think of it as the world’s official referee, but instead of a whistle, it has endless paperwork, meetings, and well-dressed diplomats. The idea was simple: when conflict arises, the UN would step in and cool things down before it got out of hand. But when it comes to the Middle East, it seems the UN has spent more time holding meetings and writing reports than actually stopping anyone from lighting a match.
The Middle East is, of course, that lovely corner of the world where history, religion, and politics have been in a wrestling match for what feels like forever. And this gives the UN its favourite challenge—constantly talking about peace while watching from the sidelines as things get worse. Year after year, the UN has worked its ‘hardest’ to bring the region’s players to the table, draft peace deals, and hold urgent meetings that do not seem to actually resolve anything. In fact, if words alone could bring peace, the Middle East would be a quiet, peaceful holiday destination by now. But, as we know, it is not.
Take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example. It has been sitting on the UN’s to-do list for as long as the UN itself has existed. The organisation has passed more resolutions on this issue than there are episodes of some long-running soap opera. They have sent envoys, organised talks, and made speeches—each more serious than the last—only to see the same problems reappear, again and again. And in 2024, the conflict gave us another memorable diplomatic moment: Israel declared UN Secretary-General António Guterres ”persona non grata”.
Israel, in a dramatic move, told the UN’s top guy he is no longer welcome in their country. Why? Well, Guterres had the nerve to suggest that after a missile attack, everyone should maybe stop firing for a minute. Unfortunately for him, he did not single out Iran in his comments, and Israel took that as an insult. They decided it was time for Guterres to pack his bags and leave, just like that annoying houseguest who did not know when to stop offering advice.
Naturally, the international community was outraged. Diplomat after diplomat took to the stage to express their full support for Guterres, as if he had been caught in some tragic Shakespearean drama. Russia’s ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, called Israel’s decision “a slap, not just on the UN, but on all of us”—which was rather dramatic, but hey, the UN does love a bit of flair.
France’s Nicolas de Rivière chimed in too, standing firmly by Guterres, probably relieved it wasn’t his turn to be in the diplomatic hot seat. A parade of diplomats from Malta, South Korea, and Algeria joined the chorus of support, all offering praise for the Secretary-General and his leadership.
Then there was the United States, where Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield took a different approach. Instead of rallying behind Guterres, she opted to sidestep the whole issue, choosing instead to reaffirm her country’s unwavering support for Israel. You could almost see her casually whistling, pretending she had not noticed the elephant in the room—an elephant named António who had just been booted out of Israel. The message was clear: no time for nuance when it comes to picking sides.
This, of course, is only the latest chapter in the UN’s complicated love-hate relationship with the Middle East. For decades, the organisation has been trying—desperately, it seems—to calm the region’s never-ending conflicts, but with very little to show for it. The Syrian Civil War is still going strong, despite the UN’s best efforts to broker peace talks. In fact, there have been so many special envoys to Syria over the years, it’s hard to keep track of who’s still on the job. And then there’s Yemen, where the UN keeps trying to get the warring sides to come to the table, but all it really seems to be achieving is a high score in sending humanitarian aid to devastated areas.
So why does the UN keep coming back for more? Surely, after decades of watching peace talks fall apart faster than a sandcastle during high tide, they would consider packing it in, right? Wrong. The UN, like an eternal optimist (An optimism frequently generated by using western funds) who keeps buying lottery tickets, is convinced that next time they’ll get it right. All they need is one more emergency meeting, one more special report, and one more speech about peace, and maybe, just maybe, it’ll work.
Despite all the chaos, the UN has had some wins. Take UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency), which has been helping Palestinian refugees for over 70 years. Sure, the number of refugees has only grown over that time, but hey, at least UNRWA is there to help. Then there’s UNSCO (the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process), which keeps reminding the world that peace, in theory, is still possible—even if achieving it seems as likely as finding snow in the Sahara.
Despite its numerous missteps, the United Nations is still seen as an essential actor on the global stage. Western diplomats argue that, while its resolutions are frequently disregarded and its peacekeepers appear more focused on photo opportunities than on maintaining peace, the Middle East—and the world—would likely be in even greater disarray without it. I, however, hold a different opinion. I believe the UN perpetuates the crises in the Middle East to preserve its own relevance and legitimacy on the world stage.
——————-
Rajeev Ahmed
The Editor of Geopolits.com and the Author of the book titled Bengal Nexus
English (United States) 
English (UK)