Speaking at U.N. headquarters alongside diplomats from Gulf states and the United States, Alwasil urged support for a draft Security Council resolution demanding Iran halt attacks and remove obstacles affecting maritime traffic through the strait.“The Strait of Hormuz remains a vital artery of global trade and any disruption to its security is a matter of serious international concern,” Alwasil said.

He said the proposed resolution sought immediate international measures to “de-escalate tensions, ensure the free and safe flow of trade and humanitarian assistance, restore stability to global markets, and protect affected populations.”Alwasil warned that disruptions to shipping routes were affecting energy markets and delaying deliveries of food, medical supplies and humanitarian goods, particularly for import-dependent countries.

The Saudi envoy appeared alongside representatives from Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar and Kuwait, as well as Mike Waltz, who said freedom of navigation was central to global economic stability.

“We believe in some basic fundamental principles, namely the freedom of navigation for the entire world’s economies,” Waltz told reporters. “That’s what’s at stake here, nothing less than a cornerstone of worldwide stability and commerce.”Diplomatic sources said Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council and a close Iranian ally, warned it was prepared to veto the resolution.

Moscow and Beijing previously abstained on a March resolution condemning Iranian attacks on Gulf states and criticizing restrictions on shipping through Hormuz.

According to diplomats, the latest U.S.-Bahrain draft resolution calls on Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, disclose the locations of naval mines, refrain from imposing transit tolls and allow the establishment of humanitarian shipping corridors for fertilizer and other essential cargo.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly one-fifth of global oil shipments and around one-third of global fertilizer trade, making it one of the world’s most strategically significant maritime chokepoints.

Commercial shipping traffic through the waterway has been heavily disrupted since conflict erupted on Feb. 28 following U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets. Regional instability has since fueled concerns over energy supplies, commodity prices and global food security.

In early April, Russia and China vetoed another Security Council proposal that would have encouraged coordinated international efforts to secure maritime navigation through the strait.

Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, disclosed that he had inadvertently been added to a Signal chat involving senior Trump administration officials discussing a planned military strike on Houthi targets in Yemen.

The disclosure raised significant concerns over national security, the handling of classified information, and potential violations of the Espionage Act. Here are five key takeaways from this unfolding controversy:

1. The Group Chat and Its Unintended Guest

Goldberg revealed that he was unexpectedly invited to a Signal chat by someone identified as Michael Waltz, believed to be Trump’s National Security Advisor and former Florida congressman. On March 13, he was added to a conversation about U.S. military operations in Yemen.

The chat reportedly included top Trump administration officials such as Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Additionally, key Trump allies, including White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and senior adviser Stephen Miller, were also present.

Goldberg did not announce his presence nor attempt to conceal it, appearing as “JG” in the chat, similar to other participants who used initials. He initially suspected a hoax but later confirmed the authenticity of the messages.

2. Security Implications and Legal Concerns

Goldberg stated that he was privy to operational details of the attack, including specific targets, weapons to be deployed, and the sequence of strikes—two hours before they took place on March 15.

He refrained from publishing those details but warned that if adversaries had gained access, American military personnel and intelligence operations could have been put at risk.

The use of Signal for discussing a military strike may have violated the Espionage Act, which regulates the handling of national defense information. Additionally, the setting of messages to auto-delete raises questions about whether official records laws were breached.

3. Internal Divisions and European Policy Debates

The chat messages also revealed Vice President Vance’s concerns about the U.S. intervening in Yemen. Vance reportedly expressed doubts about the necessity of the strike, noting that Europe had more at stake in protecting trade routes like the Suez Canal.

“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance reportedly wrote, referencing Trump’s long-standing demand that European nations take greater responsibility for their own security.

Secretary Hegseth responded, agreeing with Vance’s frustration over European “free-loading,” but insisted that the U.S. had no alternative but to act.

4. Political Fallout and Reactions

Democratic leaders swiftly condemned the episode. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz criticized Hegseth for “texting out war plans like invites to a frat party.” Senator Elizabeth Warren labeled the breach “blatantly illegal and dangerous beyond belief.”

Republicans were left scrambling. Senate Majority Leader John Thune called for a review, stating, “We’ve got to run it to ground and figure out what went on there.” Senator John Cornyn described the situation as “a huge screwup.”

5. Trump Defends Waltz Amid Controversy

Despite the scandal, President Trump expressed continued confidence in Waltz. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “The President has the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.”

However, whether the administration’s response will be sufficient to quell bipartisan concerns remains uncertain as scrutiny intensifies over how national security information was handled in this extraordinary breach.