US President Donald Trump has made it clear that ending the war against Iran is not a matter for international law, but a joint decision with Benjamin Netanyahu. In Gaza, he sells a billion‑dollar “Board of Peace” as a peace project, which has also been scrutinized in depth by the New York Times. Taken together, these two cases show how far the practice of war‑making and “peace management” has drifted away from the idea of collective security—and how much Article 27 of the UN Charter enables this.
A “Mutual Decision” With Netanyahu: How the Iran War Is Supposed to End
On March 8, 2026, Trump told several outlets that the timing of the end of the war with Iran would be a “mutual” or “joint” decision with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. US News, Times of Israel, ANI In one interview, he said he would decide “at the right time” but that this decision would be shared because the United States and Israel were acting together. Reuters He also claimed that the two countries had “destroyed a country that wanted to destroy Israel”—language that suggests not just the targeting of specific capabilities, but the systematic crushing of a state. ANI
This shifts the question of war and peace away from the sphere of the United Nations and into a very small room: Washington and Jerusalem. The UN Security Council, international norms, or regional organizations barely appear in Trump’s framing. The Iran war becomes a scheduled operation between two allies who decide among themselves when “enough” has been destroyed. CFR conflict tracker
Gaza as a Business Model: The “Board of Peace”
The way Trump talks about Gaza sounds very different—and yet follows the same logic. In January 2026, he unveiled the so‑called “Board of Peace,” a body meant to oversee the reconstruction and “stabilization” of the devastated Gaza Strip. CNN PBS NYT
Key facts:
- A US$1 billion cash contribution secures a permanent seat on the Board of Peace; states that pay less can only obtain temporary, three‑year seats. CNN PBS
- Trump himself has pledged US$10 billion, while other governments and private backers have reportedly promised around US$5–7 billion in total. Washington Post DW PBS
- The Board is supposed to make decisions on security arrangements, demilitarization and large‑scale reconstruction funding in a territory where roughly 80% of buildings in Gaza have been destroyed after nearly two years of war. NYT
- According to reporting by the New York Times and PBS, a UN Security Council resolution in late 2025 endorsed Trump’s 20‑point plan for Gaza and recognized the Board of Peace as a central hub for reconstruction and security.NYT PBS But the governance remains heavily US‑dominated: Trump chairs the board; Palestinian representation is limited; and Israel has been able to veto certain potential members, such as Turkey and Qatar, even though they are expected to contribute money.CNN NYT explainer
- More recent reporting from Gaza underlines how contested this structure is. Local voices describe the Board less as a lifeline and more as a distant, elite project: people living among the ruins say they see pledges and headlines, but little clarity on who will actually decide which neighborhoods are rebuilt first or how quickly money will reach those who lost everything. National Today Responsible Statecraft NYT follow‑up
- Even the most optimistic estimates suggest that the Board’s current pledges—roughly US$5–7 billion—cover only a fraction of what UN agencies say Gaza will need for reconstruction, with some estimates reaching US$40–70 billion. NYT
Critics therefore warn that the Board of Peace risks becoming a parallel structure to the UN, controlled by money and geopolitical leverage rather than by democratic or local legitimacy. Responsible Statecraft National Today In Gaza, massive destruction is followed by a “peace board” whose seats can literally be bought. In the Iran war, Trump announces that the end of the bombing will be negotiated bilaterally with Netanyahu. In both cases, control over war and “peace” rests in the same hands.
Veto Power Instead of Collective Security: The Role of Article 27
This concentration of power is not just a Trump phenomenon. It is enabled by the basic structure of the United Nations—above all, by Article 27 of the UN Charter, which governs voting in the Security Council. UN Charter full text UNSC veto explainer
Article 27 stipulates that for all substantive decisions of the UN Security Council—sanctions, peacekeeping mandates, authorizations of force—two conditions must be met: at least nine members must vote in favor, and the five permanent members—the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France—must all concur or at least not veto the decision. UN Repertory. UN Repertory
In practice, this gives each of the five permanent members a veto. A single “no” from any one of them can block any resolution, even if the rest of the world supports it. History of the veto For decades, states in the General Assembly, NGOs and international law scholars have criticized this veto system as a central obstacle to genuine collective security.UN GA debate academic critique obligatory abstention article From Syria to Gaza, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the current war against Iran, the pattern keeps repeating: whenever a resolution threatens the core interests of a veto power or its close allies, it can be delayed, watered down or killed altogether.veto history
A recent emergency session of the UN Security Council on the Iran strikes ended with no binding resolution, as the United States and Israel stiff-armed attempts to put real constraints on their campaign—another example of how the veto and its shadow can turn the Council into a spectator. Fortune UN stakeout video
This is where the Gaza and Iran examples connect directly to Article 27: in Gaza and in the Iran war, the United States is either a direct military actor (Iran) or the main protector of a key military player (Israel). CFR As a veto power, Washington can block or shape Security Council initiatives that do not fit its strategy—and then build its own governance structures like the Board of Peace to manage the aftermath. NYT Responsible Statecraft In other words, the same actor can be a war party, a gatekeeper at the UN, and the architect of the “peace” order that follows.
A Warning to Other States—and Why Article 27 Has to Fall
For other states that dream of strategic autonomy, deterrence or regional influence, this is a blunt warning. Any attempt to build independent military or technological power that shifts the balance of forces risks turning a country into a “security problem” in the eyes of the veto powers. Iran, Gaza and earlier conflicts show how quickly such cases are no longer primarily decided between those on the ground, but in Washington, Beijing and Moscow—with London and Paris sitting at the table but rarely rewriting the rules. CFR
The planned Xi–Trump summit in Beijing, set against the backdrop of the ongoing Iran war, underscores this reality. While Iran is being bombed, the United States and China are preparing a meeting officially focused on trade frictions, the tech war and Taiwan, with the Iran conflict appearing mostly as a complicating factor to be “managed.”Reuters analysis CNN Wang Yi When Trump says that ending the war will be a “mutual decision” with Netanyahu, he is not just describing his personal style. He is describing the functioning outcome of the veto logic: those who wage the war decide when and how it ends.
As long as Article 27 remains unchanged, this is not an accident—it is the system. A handful of states retain the right to wage wars, to block peace initiatives at the UN, and then to install their own “solutions,” whether they are called a Board of Peace or something else. veto history UN GA debate If global security is to be more than risk management by the powerful, cosmetic reforms will not be enough. Article 27 has to fall, or be fundamentally rewritten, so that war‑making states can no longer protect their own wars from scrutiny with a veto. Otherwise we will keep living in exactly the world your March special issue already names: equal power—or endless wars.
If you want to understand what a world beyond Article 27 could look like, you can explore the Equalismus theory and its proposals for a new global order without veto power: learn more about Equalismus in our in‑depth analysis “Why Equalism Breaks With Marx: Equal Capital Is Not Equal Power”, read and purchase the 100‑page special edition “Equal Power or Endless Wars?” with data, war timelines, and UN veto analysis, and get the full Equalismus Book Manifest – a portion of the proceeds supports the movement to abolish Article 27 of the UN Charter and you can sign the Equalismus Manifest at the end of the page on: https://injusticechronicle.com/equalismus/
