As the West Asian crisis remains tense, the global governance framework designed to address war and conflict appears increasingly fragmented. Amid reports of Iranian missile strikes on a U.S. military base in Qatar, Donald Trump unilaterally announced a ‘ceasefire’, a declaration immediately rejected by Iranian officials and met with silence from Israel, which reportedly continues its military assaults on Iranian targets. The U.S. appears concerned about attacks on several of its military bases in the Gulf region. Despite a flurry of conflicting signals from various quarters, the future course of the Iran–Israel conflict remains uncertain, especially as major issues remain unresolved and the U.S. continues to play a disruptive role under the guise of peacemaking. Furthermore, developments across the region, including in Gaza, highlight a deepening erosion of the rules-based international order (RBIO), a framework established after World War II to restrain unilateral use of force, institutionalise diplomacy, and uphold international law. Today, that order is being increasingly undermined by the very powers that once claimed to uphold and defend it.
Perceptibly, the military operations in the region, and most notably the U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, have raised critical questions about legality and legitimacy of international interventions and engagements. These strikes, conducted without United Nations Security Council authorisation and against facilities monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), have been widely criticised as unlawful uses of force. According to reports from the IAEA, the facilities were in compliance with inspection protocols, and no imminent threat was demonstrated at the time of attack. As noted by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, the assault represents a “perilous turn” in international affairs. It challenges not only the credibility of multilateral institutions like the UN but also the basic principle that constrains power. When powerful states disregard legal norms, they create dangerous precedents, effectively replacing law with force and undermining faith in the international system.
Does Rules-Based International Order Matter
The RBIO was put in place in the aftermath of World War II to prevent future global conflicts and control the unchecked use of power by sovereign states. This framework, grounded in the 1945 United Nations Charter, aimed to create a world governed by legal norms, mutual accountability, and cooperative diplomacy. Key principles embodied in this order include the sovereign equality of states (Article 2.1), the prohibition of the use of force except in self-defence or with UN Security Council approval (Article 2.4), and the centrality of the UN Security Council in maintaining international peace and security (Chapter VII).
To support this framework, a network of treaties and institutions was developed throughout the post-war decades. The Geneva Conventions codified humanitarian law, while the Bretton Woods system, including the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, sought to stabilise global financial relations. A significant milestone came in 1957 with the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), tasked with promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy and preventing nuclear weapons proliferation through inspections and safeguards.
Despite its normative intentions, the RBIO has always suffered from a degree of internal contradictions. While all states are subject to its principles in theory, enforcement has often favoured the interests of powerful countries, most notably the United States. Carnegie scholar Stewart Patrick observed that U.S. engagement with multilateral institutions has frequently been strategic, intended to preserve global leadership rather than reflect a genuine commitment to global egalitarianism. This inherent contradiction became apparent in the 21st century. U.S. President Donald Trump openly rejected multilateralism, asserting that American sovereignty could not be compromised by “unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy.” His administration’s withdrawal from international agreements, including the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), the Paris Climate Accord, and the Human Rights Council, indicated a shift toward unilateralism and power politics over rule-based cooperation. This approach drastically weakened the moral and legal authority of the very order the U.S. once helped create.
Legal and Moral Illegitimacy
The joint airstrikes carried out by the United States and Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities have generated widespread legal and ethical condemnation. These facilities, including those at Fordow and Natanz. were subject to active oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and no credible evidence of an imminent threat was presented to justify the use of force. Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state is prohibited unless undertaken in self-defence or authorised by the UN Security Council. In an emergency session of the UN Security Council, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi confirmed that the affected sites bore the scars of U.S. ground-penetrating munitions, raising serious concerns about damage to safeguarded nuclear infrastructure. Grossi emphasised the potential for radioactive contamination and the larger implications for the IAEA’s inspection regime.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the attacks as a “dangerous escalation,” warning they could destabilise the global non-proliferation architecture. Miroslav Jenča, the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Europe, Central Asia, and the Americas, noted that the airstrikes resulted in hundreds of Iranian civilian deaths, a clear violation of international humanitarian law, specifically the principle of civilian immunity during armed conflict. Aside from violating legal norms, the strikes challenge the moral legitimacy of international governance. Most Security Council members, with the exception of the U.S. and Israel, condemned the attacks as acts of aggression. This near-unanimous rebuke highlights a widening gap between the principles espoused by international institutions and the actions of powerful member states.
Preventive War or Aggression?
International law allows the use of force under two strict conditions – in self-defence (as outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter), or when explicitly authorised by the United Nations Security Council. Neither of these conditions were met in the case of the U.S.-Israeli operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities. No credible or publicly verifiable evidence was presented to indicate that Iran posed an immediate threat justifying pre-emptive action. Moreover, Israel did not formally invoke collective self-defence, and the United States did not make a convincing legal case to justify unilateral action under the self-defence clause. As legal scholars such as Brianna Rosen and others have noted, the operation fails to satisfy the key tests of necessity and proportionality, both of which are required under customary international law for the use of force to be considered lawful.
This type of military action is commonly referred to as preventive war, a doctrine that was widely discredited following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In that instance, similar justifications were used to launch a war without clear evidence of an imminent threat, a precedent that significantly damaged global trust in international law. Experts warn that the normalisation of preventive strikes could undermine the foundations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT is built on a core bargain – non-nuclear states commit to transparency and inspection in return for security guarantees and peaceful nuclear cooperation. Iran, a signatory to the treaty, had continued to allow IAEA inspections at the time of the attack. By targeting facilities under IAEA oversight, the U.S. and Israel have sent a troubling signal that even compliance may not prevent military action. As several UN experts have stated, such actions effectively penalise transparency and cooperation. The risk is that more countries may now reconsider their commitments to non-proliferation norms, potentially leading to treaty withdrawals or the pursuit of nuclear deterrents outside of IAEA oversight.
Trump, Netanyahu, and the Politics of Exception
The airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities should not be viewed as an isolated event, but rather as a continuation of a broader shift in U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, especially under the leadership of President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Both leaders have demonstrated a willingness to disregard long-standing international norms in favour of unilateral, often controversial, actions.
During his presidency, Trump frequently criticised multilateral institutions and agreements and withdrew from key international frameworks. These moves indicated a strategic departure from diplomatic engagement and a turn toward a doctrine cantered on national sovereignty and exceptionalism. Trump’s rhetoric, including his insistence that “America will never surrender its sovereignty,” showed this shift which reflected a broader narrative of U.S. exceptionalism over global accountability.
Similarly, Netanyahu’s government has long pursued policies that operate outside the bounds of international consensus. Actions such as the continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank, the blockade of Gaza, and the 2020–2024 discussions of annexing parts of the occupied Palestinian territories all reflect a pattern of disregarding United Nations resolutions and international legal norms. The strikes on Iran were presented by Netanyahu as both necessary and just, a “historic” act aimed at removing an existential threat. This rationale mirrors Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, which the UN Security Council later condemned in Resolution 487.
Together, Trump and Netanyahu represent a new form of leadership that openly challenges the post-1945 international legal order. Their foreign policies have frequently embraced unilateralism and rejected the legitimacy of international institutions when those bodies contradicted their strategic interests. This growing posture of legal exceptionalism has been described by some scholars as forming an “axis of impunity,” where powerful actors selectively follow rules based on convenience rather than principle. The prevailing narrative that portrays Iran as a rogue state, while ignoring Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, refusal to join the NPT, and history of defying UN Security Council resolutions, highlights the inconsistency in applying international law. Although Iran often uses provocative rhetoric, it remains a party to the NPT and has, in many cases, cooperated with the IAEA. This double standard not only weakens legal norms but also discredits institutions that claim to promote universal justice.
Where Are the Advocates of the Order
In retaliation to the airstrikes on its nuclear sites, Iran invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter, asserting its right to self-defence. Legal experts argue its response met the requirements of necessity and proportionality under international law. Iran, still a signatory to the NPT, continues to cooperate with IAEA inspections, despite being attacked, a move seen by many as undermining the incentive structure of the global non-proliferation regime. Meanwhile, accusations of U.S. violation of Iraqi airspace and Israel’s exemption from scrutiny, despite not joining the NPT, highlight deep double standards. These selective applications of international law have weakened the credibility of bodies like the UN Security Council, especially in the eyes of the Global South.
Experts warn the attack sets a dangerous precedent – that compliance with non-proliferation norms offers no protection. This could push states toward secrecy or nuclear deterrence outside IAEA frameworks. The strikes also derailed efforts to revive the JCPOA, emboldened Iranian hardliners, and escalated regional instability, threatening key routes like the Strait of Hormuz. UN experts note possible violations of jus cogens norms, given civilian targets were hit. With muted Western responses and condemnations limited to Russia and China, many fear a return to “conquest politics,” as international law gives way to force and geopolitical leverage. Undermining of legal norms in international relations benefits powerful states while encouraging emerging powers to disregard rules. Israel’s repeated defiance of international law, shielded by U.S. veto power, illustrates how accountability is selectively enforced. The U.S., once the chief architect of the rules-based order, now undermines it by supporting unilateral actions against compliant states, revealing a system where the powerful act with impunity.
This is not a momentary crisis. It shows a fundamental breakdown in the very structure of global governance. The unilaterally announced ‘ceasefire’ by Donald Trump, issued without consultation or consent from key parties, indicates the extent to which powerful actors now bypass established norms and processes. When legal standards become optional for the dominant, the legitimacy of international law gets undermined, especially in the eyes of the Global South, which has long viewed the system as exclusionary and biased. The world now faces a clear choice that indeed calls for restoring multilateralism, upholding legal equality, and pursuing meaningful reform, or accepting a global setting governed by coercion, impunity, and unilateral dominance.
A shortened version has appeared in the Policy Circle