JPIS MUN 2026
BACKGROUND GUIDE
United Nations Security Council
AGENDA
Addressing the Escalation of Hostilities in the Middle
East: The Iran–Israel Conflict and the Threat to
Regional and Global Security
Raghav Patri
President
Aarav Gupta | Annika Mangal
Vice-Presidents
1
Letter from the Secretariat
Greetings, Delegates,
It is with immense pride and great pleasure that we welcome you to JPIS MUN 2026.
On behalf of the Secretariat, we are delighted to commence what promises to be a memorable and
enriching conference. Model United Nations is more than a forum for debate, it is a space for thoughtful
dialogue, collaboration, and the exchange of perspectives that challenge us to think beyond boundaries.
Over the course of this conference, we encourage each of you to engage with confidence, speak with
purpose, and approach every discussion with respect and open-mindedness. The ideas you bring, the
arguments you build, and the solutions you propose will define the spirit of these committees.
We hope that JPIS MUN 2026 will not only sharpen your skills as delegates, but also leave you with
meaningful experiences, new friendships, and a deeper appreciation for diplomacy.
We look forward to witnessing the passion, dedication, and excellence that each of you will bring to this
conference.
Warm regards,
Raina Kapoor
Secretary-General
Kanay Shah
Deputy Secretary-General
2
Letter from the President and Vice-Presidents
Dear Delegates,
It is my honour to welcome you to the United Nations Security Council at JPIS MUN 2026.
Established in 1945 after World War II, the United Nations Security Council was created to maintain
international peace and security. Since then, it has worked to prevent conflict through peacekeeping
missions, sanctions, diplomacy, and collective action.
The Middle East today stands at one of its most dangerous crossroads. The escalation of hostilities
between Iran and Israel is no longer a matter of bilateral tension alone; it is a crisis with the power to
destabilize an entire region, disrupt global security, threaten energy routes, endanger civilians, and
weaken the international rules-based order. From direct military confrontation to proxy warfare, from
nuclear security concerns to the risk of wider regional involvement, this agenda demands urgency,
responsibility, and diplomacy of the highest standard.
As members of the Security Council, you are not merely representatives of national policy. You are
guardians of international peace and security. The decisions you make in committee must reflect the
seriousness of a world watching closely, where every word may either deepen division or open the door to
de-escalation.
Delegates are expected to examine this crisis through multiple lenses: sovereignty, self-defence,
non-proliferation, protection of civilians, maritime security, regional alliances, and the role of
international law. You must ask difficult questions. How can the Security Council prevent the conflict
from expanding? How can humanitarian consequences be minimized? What role should diplomacy,
sanctions, peacebuilding, and regional security frameworks play?
The Security Council is often criticized for division, deadlock, and delayed action. At JPIS MUN 2026,
you have the opportunity to prove that diplomacy can still rise above hostility. Let this committee not
become an echo chamber of accusations, but a forum where courage meets compromise and where
national interest is balanced with global responsibility.
I look forward to witnessing your diplomacy, debate, and determination.
Warm regards,
Raghav Patri
President
Aarav Gupta
Vice-President
Annika Mangal
Vice-President
3
Introduction to the Committee
The United Nations Security Council, commonly known as the UNSC, is one of the most powerful organs
of the United Nations and holds the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and
security. Established in 1945 after the devastation of the Second World War, the Council was created to
ensure that the international community could respond collectively to threats, conflicts, and acts of
aggression before they escalate into wider wars.
The UNSC plays a central role in identifying threats to peace and recommending or enforcing measures to
address them. It may call upon conflicting parties to negotiate, declare ceasefires, or resolve disputes
through peaceful means. When diplomacy fails, the Council has the authority to impose sanctions,
establish peacekeeping missions, authorize humanitarian access, create arms embargoes, and, in extreme
cases, approve the use of force. This makes the UNSC unique because its decisions can be legally binding
on all UN Member States.
The Council also serves as a platform where nations debate urgent global crises. Its role is not only to
respond after violence has begun, but also to prevent escalation by encouraging dialogue, restraint, and
cooperation. In conflicts such as the Iran–Israel crisis, the UNSC becomes especially important because
regional tensions can quickly affect global security, energy routes, nuclear safety, and civilian lives.
A key feature of the UNSC is the special position of its five permanent members: People’s Republic of
China, French Republic, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
and the United States of America. These countries hold veto power, meaning that if any one of them votes
against a substantive resolution, the resolution fails, even if most other members support it.
In this committee, delegates must understand both the authority and responsibility that come with UNSC
procedure. To adopt a resolution, a two-thirds majority is required, meaning that a strong level of support
must be built through negotiation, compromise, and diplomacy. Delegates must therefore work not only to
defend their country’s foreign policy, but also to form alliances and draft practical solutions that can gain
broad approval.
Ultimately, the UNSC represents the world’s highest forum for collective security. Its success depends on
whether nations can rise above political division and act in the interest of peace, stability, and humanity.
4
Introduction to the Agenda
The agenda, “Addressing the Escalation of Hostilities in the Middle East: The Iran–Israel Conflict and the
Threat to Regional and Global Security,” focuses on one of the most urgent security challenges facing the
international community. The conflict between Iran and Israel is not limited to two nations; it has the
potential to destabilize the entire Middle East, affect global energy routes, endanger civilian populations,
and increase the risk of wider military confrontation.
This issue is especially significant for the United Nations Security Council because it involves questions
of sovereignty, self-defence, nuclear security, proxy warfare, regional alliances, and the protection of
civilians. The UN Secretary-General has warned that further military escalation in the region could lead to
a broader conflict and has called for de-escalation and restraint.
In this committee, delegates must work towards practical solutions that reduce tensions, prevent further
violence, protect civilians, and strengthen diplomatic channels. The goal is not only to respond to the
current crisis, but also to create a framework for long-term peace and regional stability.
5
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The rivalry between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the State of Israel is one of the most consequential
confrontations in the contemporary international order — an antagonism rooted in revolutionary ideology,
strategic competition, and four decades of proxy warfare that has progressively escalated toward direct
military exchange. The United Nations Security Council, charged under Chapter VII of the UN Charter
with the maintenance of international peace and security, faces a conflict whose humanitarian,
nuclear-proliferation, and regional-stability implications are of the gravest magnitude
FROM PARTNERSHIP TO ENMITY (1948–1979)
Prior to 1979, Iran and Israel maintained extensive covert cooperation. Under Shah Mohammad Reza
Pahlavi, Israel's Periphery Doctrine — the strategy of cultivating alliances with non-Arab states to offset
Arab hostility — found its most significant expression in the Iranian relationship. The two states shared
intelligence through the TRIDENT alliance (alongside Turkey), conducted joint military planning, and
maintained a confidential oil pipeline arrangement. Israel's Mossad trained SAVAK, the Shah's
intelligence service, and Iran supplied a substantial share of Israel's energy imports.
The Iranian Revolution of February 1979 shattered this partnership irreversibly. Ayatollah Khomeini's
revolutionary ideology designated Israel "the Little Satan" — an illegitimate colonial implant in the
Islamic world whose elimination was framed as a religious obligation. Within weeks, the Israeli mission
in Tehran was expelled and its premises transferred to the PLO. The new Iranian state began actively
constructing what would become a regional network of allied non-state forces — Hezbollah established in
Lebanon in 1982 with IRGC guidance being its first and most capable product.
PROXY WARFARE AND THE NUCLEAR DIMENSION (1980–2015)
The decades following the revolution were defined by two interlocking dynamics: Iran's construction of
the "Axis of Resistance" — a network of armed non-state actors (Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic
Jihad, Iraqi militias, and later the Houthis) — and the accelerating confrontation over Iran's nuclear
programme. Iran's proxy network gave it strategic depth and deniability, enabling pressure on Israel
across multiple fronts without direct military engagement; Israel responded with a sustained covert
campaign including cyberattacks (most notably Stuxnet, which damaged Iranian centrifuges at Natanz in
2010) and the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.
The JCPOA of 2015 represented the most serious diplomatic attempt to constrain the nuclear dimension.
Israel, under Prime Minister Netanyahu, opposed the agreement as insufficiently permanent and argued
that sanctions relief would finance Iran's regional activities. Following the US withdrawal from the
JCPOA in 2018, Iran progressively abandoned its commitments, enriching uranium to 84% purity by
2023 — just below weapons grade — and reducing its estimated nuclear breakout time to weeks.
6
DIRECT MILITARY CONFRONTATION AND THE 2024 ESCALATION
The conflict crossed a historic threshold on 13–14 April 2024, when Iran launched approximately 300
drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles directly against Israeli territory — the first such direct
Iranian strike in history, framed as retaliation for an Israeli strike on the Iranian consular annex in
Damascus. Israeli and allied air defences intercepted the overwhelming majority of projectiles, limiting
physical damage while establishing a precedent of direct state-to-state military exchange that
fundamentally altered the conflict's character.
The remainder of 2024 saw sustained escalation: intensive Israeli operations in Lebanon culminated in the
killing of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah in September 2024, and Iran launched a second
ballistic missile barrage against Israel on 1 October 2024. Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen
conducted sustained attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea, reducing Suez Canal transit volumes
by an estimated 50% and disrupting global supply chains. The conflict had expanded from a bilateral
confrontation into a multi-front regional emergency with global economic consequences.
THE UN FRAMEWORK AND CORE CHALLENGES
The UNSC's capacity to respond has been structurally constrained by the veto dynamics of the P5. Russia
and China have resisted resolutions imposing additional pressure on Iran; the United States has similarly
shielded Israel from censure. The IAEA has repeatedly found Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards
obligations, yet the Security Council has been unable to construct a unified response. UN Security
Council Resolution 2231 (2015), which endorsed the JCPOA, has been rendered largely inoperative by
the agreement's collapse.
Delegates must grapple with several foundational questions: How can the Council address Iran's
advancing nuclear programme when P5 unity is absent? What mechanisms can constrain the activities of
state-backed non-state armed groups operating across sovereign borders? How does the Council balance
the legitimate security concerns of both Iran and Israel against the imperative to protect civilian
populations — most acutely in Gaza, where the humanitarian catastrophe triggered by October 7, 2023
has produced conditions of famine for millions? And how can diplomacy construct viable de-escalation
frameworks for a conflict whose parties have, thus far, prioritised deterrence over dialogue?
7
KEY STATE ACTORS
The Iran–Israel conflict does not exist in a bilateral vacuum. A constellation of state actors — each
pursuing distinct strategic interests — shapes, enables, constrains, and is affected by the trajectory of
hostilities. Delegates must understand not only the two principal adversaries but the wider international
architecture of interests that will define the parameters of any Security Council response.
United States of America — Principal Ally of Israel; UNSC P5 Member
The United States is the most consequential external actor in the conflict. Washington provides Israel with
approximately $3.8 billion in annual military assistance under the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding,
supplies advanced weapons systems (including F-35 aircraft, Iron Dome components, and precision
munitions), and has deployed naval assets to the Eastern Mediterranean during periods of escalation. The
US exercises a de facto veto over UNSC resolutions critical of Israeli military conduct, having blocked or
abstained on numerous such resolutions since 2023.
On the Iranian side, the US has maintained maximum-pressure sanctions since the 2018 JCPOA
withdrawal, targeting Iran's oil, banking, and IRGC-linked entities. Washington designated the IRGC as a
foreign terrorist organisation in 2019. The US simultaneously navigates tension between supporting
Israeli security and avoiding a broader regional war, as demonstrated by its interception of Iranian
projectiles during the April 2024 barrage and its back-channel communications urging Israeli restraint in
the aftermath.
State of Israel — Primary Adversary
Israel is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), though it is widely understood to
possess an undeclared nuclear arsenal. Its strategic doctrine prioritises the prevention of a nuclear-armed
Iran as an existential imperative, and successive governments have reserved the right to unilateral military
action to that end. Israel operates one of the world's most sophisticated multilayered missile defence
architectures (Iron Dome, David's Sling, Arrow-2, Arrow-3) and maintains significant offensive cyber and
air strike capabilities.
Israel's declared objectives in the current conflict phase include the dismantlement of Hamas's governing
and military capacity in Gaza, the degradation of Hezbollah's precision missile arsenal, and the prevention
of Iranian nuclear breakout. Prime Minister Netanyahu's government has resisted international pressure
for a Gaza ceasefire, framing continued military operations as existential necessity. Israel's relationship
with the UNSC is one of deep scepticism, given decades of resolutions it considers biased; it regards
direct US support as its primary security guarantee.
Islamic Republic of Iran — Primary Adversary
Iran is the principal state actor seeking to restructure the Middle Eastern order against Israeli and
American primacy. Its strategy rests on three pillars: the Axis of Resistance (proxy network), advancing
8
nuclear capabilities as a deterrent, and diplomatic outreach to Russia, China, and the Global South to
build a counter-sanctions coalition. Iran's IRGC Quds Force coordinates operations with Hezbollah,
Hamas, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias, providing weapons, training, intelligence, and strategic direction.
Iran frames its posture in the conflict as defensive resistance against Israeli aggression and American
imperialism, invoking Palestinian self-determination as a legitimising principle in international forums. It
has sought to use the Gaza conflict to mobilise global Muslim opinion and isolate Israel diplomatically.
Iran's nuclear programme — with enrichment at 84% purity and breakout time measured in weeks —
constitutes the most acute non-proliferation challenge facing the international community and the core
strategic leverage Iran holds against military escalation.
Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain) — Regional Stakeholders;
Divergent Postures
The Gulf Cooperation Council states occupy a complex position, simultaneously threatened by Iranian
regional ambitions and economically intertwined with Western security guarantees. Saudi Arabia and the
UAE had been quietly moving toward normalisation with Israel under the Abraham Accords framework
prior to October 7, 2023 — a rapprochement Iran sought to disrupt. The Hamas attack and subsequent
Gaza war have placed Arab governments under intense domestic pressure to distance themselves from
Israel, temporarily halting normalisation momentum.
Qatar plays a distinctive mediating role, hosting Hamas's political leadership in Doha and serving as an
indispensable back-channel for hostage negotiations. Saudi Arabia has conditioned any resumption of
normalisation on a credible pathway to Palestinian statehood. The UAE, a signatory of the Abraham
Accords, has maintained its relationship with Israel while expressing concern over civilian casualties in
Gaza. Bahrain, which hosts the US Fifth Fleet, is a critical node in American military posture toward Iran.
Collectively, the Gulf states fear both an emboldened, nuclear-capable Iran and an open regional war that
would devastate their economies.
Russian Federation — UNSC P5 Member; Tacit Iran Partner
Russia's position in the conflict is shaped by its broader confrontation with the West following its 2022
invasion of Ukraine. Moscow has deepened its relationship with Iran, which has supplied Russia with
Shahed loitering munitions used in Ukraine; in exchange, Russia has provided Iran with advanced air
defence systems (S-400 components) and reportedly cooperation on military technology. Russia has
consistently used its UNSC veto to block resolutions that would impose additional pressure on Iran or
authorise robust international responses to Iranian actions.
Russia maintains formal diplomatic relations with Israel and hosts a significant Russian-speaking Jewish
diaspora, complicating its posture. Moscow has sought to position itself as a potential mediator while in
practice enabling Iranian military capacity. Russia's primary interest is in prolonging Western distraction
with Middle Eastern instability, weakening the US-led alliance system, and maintaining Iran as a strategic
partner. Russian rhetoric emphasises Palestinian rights and criticises Israeli military operations, aligning
with Global South sentiment.
9
People's Republic of China — UNSC P5 Member; Economic Partner of Iran
China is Iran's most important economic partner, purchasing the majority of Iran's sanctioned oil exports
and providing a financial lifeline that substantially blunts the impact of US maximum-pressure sanctions.
The 2021 China-Iran 25-year Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement — covering trade, infrastructure,
and security — signalled a deepening strategic partnership. China has used its UNSC veto in coordination
with Russia to block resolutions targeting Iran and has publicly criticised Israeli military operations in
Gaza in terms unusually sharp for Chinese diplomatic language.
China's position reflects several converging interests: its energy security dependence on Middle Eastern
oil requires regional stability, its rivalry with the US incentivises weakening American alliance structures,
and its economic relationship with Iran is a strategic asset it is unwilling to sacrifice. China has positioned
itself as a diplomatic broker — most notably brokering the Saudi-Iranian diplomatic normalisation
agreement in March 2023 — seeking to present an alternative to American-led order in the region without
assuming direct security commitments.
European Union Members & United Kingdom — Diplomatic Actors;
Humanitarian Stakeholders
The European Union and United Kingdom occupy an increasingly uncomfortable middle ground —
historically aligned with US positions on Israel's security while facing mounting domestic political
pressure over Palestinian civilian casualties and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The EU collectively
recognises Palestinian statehood (through many individual member states) and is the largest donor to
UNRWA, the UN agency providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinian refugees. Several EU member
states (Spain, Ireland, Norway) formally recognised Palestine in May 2024, straining consensus.
The UK and key EU member states (France, Germany) are parties to the JCPOA's diplomatic architecture
(the E3) and have sought to preserve channels for Iranian nuclear diplomacy even as the agreement has
collapsed in practice. The EU has maintained its own sanctions regime on Iran over nuclear
non-compliance and human rights violations. European states contributed to the interception of Iranian
drones and missiles during the April 2024 attack. The EU's primary strategic interests are in preventing a
broader regional war that would trigger refugee flows, energy price shocks, and terrorism risks with direct
European consequences.
10
11