The Crisis of Multilateralism and Implications for Middle-Power Diplomacy: Perspectives from the 81st UN General Assembly

Executive Summary

The 81st UN General Assembly convened against the backdrop of two ongoing armed conflicts: the U.S.-Iran war, now in its seventh month, and the war in Ukraine, in its fifth year. The walkout by the U.S. delegation during the Iranian president’s speech and President Zelenskyy’s singling out of Putin demonstrate that the Security Council's permanent member system is effectively paralyzed by a structure where permanent members are themselves parties to conflicts. The Brookings Institution's characterization of this session as "the most serious crisis since 1945" is rooted in the UN's organizational vulnerability, compounded by budget cuts and a leadership transition for the Secretary-General. Looking ahead, a prolonged stalemate, with the General Assembly serving merely as a venue for blocs to reaffirm their positions (55%), is more likely than the possibility that President Trump's "make a deal or be annihilated" remark will lead to actual negotiation channels (15%). South Korea should prepare reconstruction and energy import diversification measures in anticipation of a negotiation phase. However, its immediate priority under a prolonged stalemate scenario should be to establish principles for managing risks in the Strait of Hormuz and responding to secondary sanctions. While discussions on reforming the Security Council's permanent membership offer an opportunity to expand diplomatic space for middle powers, short-term results are unlikely as any reform would clash with the vested interests of the five permanent members.

I. Situational Analysis

Situational Analysis of the 81st UN General Assembly: Speeches by Major Leaders Amid a Crisis of Multilateralism

1. Background and Developments

The 81st UN General Assembly opened in New York under the theme "Restoring Trust, Managing Transitions: A UN for All"[2]. The Brookings Institution described this session as reflecting a UN facing "its most serious crisis since 1945"[2]. It also pointed out that this coincides with a period of budget cuts and a leadership transition for the Secretary-General[2].

This General Assembly session convened as the U.S.-Iran war entered its seventh month[15]. The U.S. and Israeli airstrikes against Iran began on February 28, 2026[3][5]. The initial objectives were regime change and the dismantlement of nuclear facilities[3][5][7]. Although an Israeli airstrike killed Supreme Leader Khamenei, regime change was not achieved[5][7]. President Trump initially predicted the war would end in "four to five weeks," a prediction that has not materialized even after six months[3][5]. On the 22nd, the day before, Trump, as the first speaker at the General Assembly, stated that Iran must choose one of two options: "make a deal or be annihilated"[6][12].

The war in Ukraine is also now in its fourth year. President Zelenskyy began his address to the General Assembly by quoting one of President Trump's posts on Truth Social[4]. He referenced Trump's statement that Russia had "lost" control of its oil industry, describing it as a "humiliating loss" for a nation that is both a permanent member of the Security Council and a country that prides itself on its oil exports[4].

2. Current Situation

On September 23, the second day of the General Assembly, the U.S. delegation walked out of the hall as soon as Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian took the podium to begin his speech[1][10][14]. Pezeshkian held up a photograph of Supreme Leader Khamenei and pictures of more than 150 children killed on the first day of the war[13]. "We will never bow our heads," he declared[10]. While defining Iran as a "victim of terrorism," he also emphasized that his country had not abandoned its commitment to a diplomatic solution[13][14][16].

The Tehran Times described the atmosphere at this General Assembly as a "global rebellion against Washington and Tel Aviv"[8]. With leaders from over 130 countries in attendance, security around the venue was tight, and some went so far as to describe the UN itself as "an organization paralyzed by Western aggression"[8]. While this reflects the characteristic tone of Iranian state media, the view pointing to a disconnect between the General Assembly's theme of "restoring trust" and the reality on the ground is also shared by Western media[2][8].

On the same day, Zelenskyy labeled Putin "patient zero of this war" and urged that he be stopped[4]. He expressed agreement with Trump's message that the war in Ukraine must be brought to an end[4]. Germany's Deutsche Welle reported that artificial intelligence, the war in Iran, and climate change were also on the day's agenda[6]. Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, Iran's Pezeshkian, and Ukraine's Zelenskyy took the podium in succession, followed by Spanish Prime Minister Sánchez and Venezuela's Rodríguez[6].

3. Key Actors and Positions

IranThrough President Pezeshkian, made a concerted effort to impress upon the international community that it did not start the war[10]. Tehran reacted with outrage to Trump's "annihilated" remark from the previous day, using the visual appeal of photographs of child victims to assert moral superiority in the eyes of Western public opinion and leaders of non-aligned nations[1][13]. Before his departure, Pezeshkian had told reporters he hoped the General Assembly would contribute to restoring international trust and ending the war; however, his actual speech at the podium placed more weight on condemning the damage suffered than on expressing a willingness to negotiate[11].

United StatesPresident Trump maintained a dual message, simultaneously signaling hardline pressure on Iran and the possibility of negotiations[6][12]. The U.S. delegation's walkout during Pezeshkian's speech is interpreted as a signal of its refusal to even listen to Iran's arguments[1][14]. A previous EAI analysis assessed that Trump's "annihilated" remark was less a policy shift and more a rhetorical tactic to apply pressure for negotiations, stemming from the failure to achieve military objectives over the past six months[3]. That analysis concluded that the substantive policy direction is likely to become clear only after the November 3 midterm elections[3][5].

UkraineThrough President Zelenskyy, adopted a strategy of directly naming Russia[4]. His quoting of Trump's remarks on Russia can be read as an attempt to highlight cooperation with the United States while simultaneously reaffirming Putin's responsibility to the international community[4].

UN SecretariatFacing the dual constraints of budget cuts and a leadership transition, put forward the agenda of "restoring trust," but the symbolic scene of the U.S. delegation's walkout cast doubt on the feasibility of this agenda[2][8]. The Gulf states were also scheduled to use the General Assembly as an opportunity to discuss post-war strategy for Iran with Trump, but separate reports confirm that divisions in their approach persist, caught between Saudi Arabia's hardline stance and the UAE's pragmatic engagement[7].

4. Key Issues

The divisions that emerged at the General Assembly can be summarized in three areas. First is the competing narrative over the legitimacy of the U.S.-Iran war. Washington cites Iran's nuclear and missile programs as its justification, while Tehran is waging an international public opinion campaign based on civilian casualties[13][8]. Second is the issue of accountability for the Russia-Ukraine war. Zelenskyy's "patient zero" remark is an attempt to increase international pressure on Russia ahead of a potential end-of-war negotiation phase, and is noteworthy in conjunction with the possibility of a shift in U.S. perceptions of Russia[4].

Third is the dysfunction of the UN system itself. The walkout by the United States, a permanent member of the Security Council, during a member state leader's speech is taken as a sign that even minimal diplomatic courtesies are no longer functioning among the permanent members[1][14]. The Brookings Institution's assessment of "the worst crisis since 1945" is the result of an accumulation of such scenes[2]. A key point to watch after this General Assembly is whether the UN, grappling with budget shortages and a leadership transition, can play a substantive role in future conflict mediation or escalation prevention[2][7].

II. In-depth Analysis

In-depth Analysis of the 81st UN General Assembly: The Structural Origins of the Crisis of Multilateralism

1. Analysis of Root Causes

The two scenes that unfolded at the 81st General Assembly were not accidental. The U.S. delegation's walkout during President Pezeshkian's speech was a predictable move[1][10][14], coming just after President Trump had told Iran to "make a deal or be annihilated" the previous day[6][12]. Pezeshkian's act of holding up photos of Supreme Leader Khamenei and child victims was a visual counter to America's verbal pressure[13]. The root cause is the same for both sides: they used the UN General Assembly podium not as a negotiating table but as a stage for a public opinion battle. With the UN unable to function as a mediator with enforcement power between conflicting parties, leaders' speeches have devolved from a substantive tool for mediation into a propaganda channel aimed at influencing the opposing country's public opinion and gaining international sympathy.

This situation is directly linked to the incapacitation of the Security Council's permanent member system. Zelenskyy's reference to Russia as "a permanent member and a country that prides itself on its oil exports" and his mention of its "humiliating loss"[4] was a remark aimed at the gap between its status and its actions. When a permanent member of the Security Council is a party to a conflict or a patron of a party, the Council itself cannot function. Russia in the Ukraine war and the United States in the Iran war each represent one side of this structural problem. The Brookings Institution's assessment that the UN is facing "its most serious crisis since 1945"[2] points directly to this structural paralysis.

2. Structural Context

Political Structure: Coincidence with a Budget and Leadership Vacuum

This crisis coincided with a moment when the UN's own organizational vulnerability was at its peak. It has been noted that budget cuts and a leadership transition for the Secretary-General are occurring simultaneously[2]. The political influence of an international organization typically stems from its financial capacity and the stability of its secretariat's leadership. The fact that two ongoing wars took center stage at the General Assembly at a time when both of these factors were shaky further weakened the UN's voice. The scene of the U.S. delegation walking out during a member state leader's speech at a General Assembly themed "restoring trust"[1][10][14] rendered the theme itself meaningless.

Security Structure: Two Ongoing Wars

It is unusual for both the war in Ukraine and the U.S.-Iran war to be at the top of the General Assembly's agenda simultaneously. The U.S.-Iran war entered its seventh month after beginning on February 28, 2026[15]. The initial U.S. goals of regime change and dismantlement of nuclear facilities have not been achieved, despite Khamenei's death[5][7]. Trump's repeatedly incorrect "four to five week" prediction[3][5] highlights the disconnect between military objectives and political forecasts. As this disconnect grew, Trump shifted to harsher rhetoric on the General Assembly podium with his "annihilated" remark[6][12], creating a dynamic where Iran countered with images of child victims.

As the war in Ukraine entered its fourth year, it became a relatively familiar topic at the General Assembly, but the approach Zelenskyy took this time was new. Beginning his speech by directly quoting Trump's Truth Social post[4] can be read as an explicit signal of cooperation with the U.S. administration. This suggests that Ukraine is employing a strategy of repurposing U.S. statements of pressure against Russia to its own advantage.

Economic Structure: Pressure for Negotiations Created by Sanctions and Blockades

The backdrop to the U.S.-Iran war is a power struggle over the Strait of Hormuz. A previous EAI analysis assessed that after the collapse of the Islamabad Memorandum, "Iran reasserted control over the Strait of Hormuz"[3]. This can be seen as an attempt by Iran to maintain negotiating leverage through economic means, despite its military inferiority. Trump's "annihilated" remark has also been assessed as "more of a rhetorical tactic to apply pressure for negotiations, stemming from the failure to achieve military objectives over six months"[3]. The scheduled meeting with leaders of the six Gulf states just before his General Assembly speech[5][7] can also be understood as an extension of this economic and security pressure. Qatar's proposal for a common regional security architecture that does not exclude Iran[7] also shows that the Gulf states recognize the limits of a strategy based solely on containment.

3. Historical Precedents and Comparison with Similar Cases

Protesting by having a delegation walk out during a leader's speech is a recurring practice at the UN General Assembly. There are past instances of delegations expressing opposition in a similar manner, such as between the Soviet and Western blocs during the Cold War or in response to remarks on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. However, the unique aspect of this case is that the party walking out was the United States, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the host country. A host country's delegation walking out during a member state leader's speech is an unusual scene that deviates from the normal operating norms of the General Assembly. This exceptional nature is why Croatia's Jutarnji list explicitly highlighted that "all the Americans left the hall"[10].

Iran's method of directly presenting photos of child victims at the podium is a classic tactic for a warring nation to appeal to international public opinion. However, for a head of state to personally attend and speak at the General Assembly while his country is at war with the UN host nation is unusual, as Canada's Globe and Mail noted, calling it an "unprecedented case"[16]. Typically, leaders of warring nations tend not to personally attend international conferences held in enemy territory due to security concerns or fears of diplomatic breaches. Pezeshkian's visit to New York and his insistence on speaking reflect a calculation that Iran's need to project a message of "not surrendering" both domestically and internationally outweighed the burdens of visiting U.S. territory.

Regarding the war in Ukraine, Zelenskyy has directly criticized Russia at past General Assemblies, so his "patient zero" remark[4] is a continuation of his rhetoric. However, starting his speech by quoting President Trump's remarks is a tactical shift from the past, showing that Ukraine is more actively trying to align its tone with that of the U.S. administration.

4. Key Variables Shaping Future Developments

The U.S. midterm election schedule.An EAI analysis projected that the substantive direction of Trump's Iran policy "will likely become clear only after the November 3 midterm elections"[3][5]. Whether the hardline rhetoric of his General Assembly speech leads to an actual expansion of military action or remains merely a negotiating tactic will likely depend on the political election calendar.

Divisions in the Gulf states' approach to Iran.With Saudi Arabia's condemnatory stance coexisting with the UAE's pragmatic engagement[3][5][7], U.S. demands for participation in the financial isolation of Iran will be difficult to advance without an internal consensus among the Gulf states. Whether Qatar's proposal for a common regional security framework moves beyond a political gesture to become institutionalized is another variable to watch[7].

The actual extent of damage to Russia's oil industry.The future of coordinated sanctions against Russia will depend on whether Trump's assessment, quoted by Zelenskyy, that "Russia has lost control of its oil industry"[4] reflects the actual effects of sanctions or is an exaggeration intended to apply pressure for negotiations.

Resolution of the UN Secretary-General transition and budget issues.If the budget cuts and leadership vacuum[2] become prolonged, the General Assembly is likely to further lose its substantive coordinating function, and leaders' speeches will likely become entrenched as a stage for public opinion battles. This is a key juncture that will determine whether the General Assembly can be restored as a substantive mediation platform or will remain merely a channel for countries to send messages to domestic and international audiences.