US-Israeli Aggression and Death of Rules-Based International Order

Albin Thomas

For decades, the United States positioned itself as the supreme architect and guardian of the liberal international order. From the podiums of the United Nations to the halls of Ivy League institutions, American presidents lectured the Global South on the sanctity of international law, the necessity of international organisations, and the moral imperative of human rights. However, every act/war initiated by the United States and its allies contradicted these principles that built the present day liberal international order. The recent military aggression by the US and Israel against Iran is not merely a regional escalation; it is a naked exposition of imperialist hypocrisy. It is a war without clear justification, initiated in blatant violation of international law, marked by genocidal rhetoric, and destined to plunge global international relations into a dangerous, chaotic new era. The war is a systematic violation of established international legal frameworks. What makes this particularly alarming is not merely the violations themselves, but the casual dismissiveness with which they have been executed, almost as if international law was always meant to be selectively applied based on political convenience.

The War Without Clear Justification

Every legitimate military intervention under international law requires meeting specific criteria. For example, a genuine threat, exhaustion of peaceful alternatives, proportionality of response, and authorisation from appropriate bodies. The recent actions against Iran fail on multiple counts.

Proportionality and Pre-emption: The concept of pre-emptive self-defence exists in international law, but it is narrowly defined. It requires an imminent threat that cannot be addressed through other means. The operations launched against Iran lack this immediacy. Intelligence assessments are now widely disputed and were presented as definitive truths without independent verification. International atomic energy inspectors had repeatedly certified Iran's compliance with nuclear agreements, a fact conveniently ignored when building the case for military action.

Exhaustion of Diplomatic Remedies: The international legal system provides multiple mechanisms for resolving disputes: UN Security Council deliberations, International Court of Justice proceedings, diplomatic negotiations, and sanctions regimes. None were genuinely pursued to their conclusion. The withdrawal from the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or Iran nuclear deal) in 2018 already represented a breach of international commitments, and the subsequent maximum pressure campaign bypassed established diplomatic frameworks entirely.

Collective Security Bypass: The UN Charter is explicit against a military action. The Charter of the United Nations prohibits the threat or use of military force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Military action against another state requires either self-defence against an ongoing attack or authorisation from the Security Council. Neither condition was met here. By circumventing collective security mechanisms, the US and Israel have weakened the very foundation upon which international peace and security depend.

The Slippery Slope to War Crimes 

When a war begins as an illegal act of aggression, the commission of war crimes becomes almost inevitable. The rhetoric coming from Washington and Tel Aviv has removed any pretense of adhering to international humanitarian law. Consider the savage threat from the US President: "A whole civilization will die tonight." Under the Geneva Conventions, the principles of distinction (targeting only combatants) and proportionality (ensuring civilian harm is not excessive to the military advantage) are the bedrock of the laws of war. When a head of state threatens the annihilation of an entire civilization, it is not merely hyperbole; it is an explicit threat of collective punishment and a public declaration of genocidal intent. Targeting Iranian nuclear scientists, civilian infrastructure, or population centers under the guise of "deterring proliferation" constitutes a war crime.

The use of overwhelming military force against a country that is already heavily sanctioned and economically strangulated is a form of collective punishment. Moreover, the US’s continued shielding of Israel from accountability at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for its ongoing genocide in Gaza has created a culture of absolute impunity. If Israel can bomb hospitals in Gaza with US backing and face no consequences, striking Iran becomes a calculated next step. The normalization of war crimes in Palestine has now officially spilled over into a broader regional war. War crimes are not simply individual acts of brutality; they emerge from institutional frameworks and operational doctrines that dehumanize the enemy and deprioritize civilian protection. Several developments point toward this trajectory:

Command Responsibility Failures: Military doctrine requires commanders to take feasible measures to prevent or minimize civilian harm. The rapid escalation of operations without adequate rules of engagement creates conditions where violations become likely, if not inevitable.

Collective Punishment Concerns: Targeting infrastructure that serves civilian populations, power grids, water systems, medical facilities, constitutes collective punishment, explicitly prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Obstruction of Humanitarian Access: Limiting humanitarian aid to affected populations while conducting operations transforms deprivation into a weapon of war, another prohibited practice.

The Rules-Based Order in Crisis

Stacie Goddard, Professor of political science at Wellesley College, USA commented that “We’re really at a low point in a rules-based order”. The statement "We're really at a low point in a rules-based order" reflects a genuine and deep concern shared by international legal scholars, former diplomats, and military ethicists worldwide. The consequences extend far beyond any single conflict. International law functions because states expect consistent application. When major powers exempt themselves from rules, they create templates that smaller states will inevitably follow, arguing that their actions are no worse than those of the great powers. The United Nations, the International Criminal Court, and other bodies depend on voluntary compliance and political support from major powers. Demonstrated contempt for their authority weakens their ability to prevent future conflicts. When diplomatic solutions are bypassed and military action validated, other states rationally conclude that nuclear and advanced conventional capabilities are their best protection against coercion. This accelerates proliferation and increases global instability. Long-standing security partnerships are being tested by questions about reliability, legality, and moral positioning. States that have relied on American security guarantees are now reassessing whether those guarantees are worth accepting when they come with legal and ethical baggage. Nations of the Global South, many of which have experienced Western military intervention under specious legal justifications, see the current actions as confirmation of what they have long alleged: international law is a tool of Western hegemony, applied selectively to serve great power interests. 

Conclusion

The war against Iran represents a watershed moment in international relations. The systematic bypass of legal requirements, the documented violations of humanitarian law, and the rhetorical normalization of civilian harm mark a retreat from the principles that were supposed to govern relations between states. The irony is complete: the very powers that insisted on rules-based behaviour from others have demonstrated contempt for those same rules when their interests diverged. The fight against this illegal, unjustified war is not just a question of West Asian geopolitics. Moreover, it is the frontline battle for the survival of international law, global peace, and the very future of humanity against the barbarism of imperialism.