**This Picture is AI generated due to the inability to fund a photo for commercial use**
Iran has found itself being struck by both Israel and the U.S.A. within this month as the tensions within the middle-east spiral out of control. While each attack is justified by its perpetrator as a “defensive” or “targeted” response, the reality is a troubling pattern of escalation. The bombing campaigns, whether framed as pre-emptive or retaliatory, are not isolated incidents as it just further shows the new shift of discarding democracy for domination, with Donald Trump not even going to the extent of getting the authorization of the US congress.
Some representatives see this lack of authorization as grounds to impeach president Donald Trump.
Trump said. “Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!”
This being after Donald Trump campaigned on the idea that American people shouldn’t be going to wars pledging to end foreign wars and not start new ones showing a huge change.
In all the talk of “targeted strikes” and “defensive strikes” one fact keeps getting ignored: Iran is a sovereign nation. Whether we agree with its leadership or not, sovereignty is the cornerstone of international law. These strikes in the short term may be deterring the supposed threat of nuclear arsenal in Iran. But in the long term what does it say about the power of the UN and international relations theory as a whole, as most major conflicts within the 21st century have ran past the UN without approval.
| Conflict | Main Actor(s) | UN Approved? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Iraq War (2003) | U.S. & U.K. | ❌ No | No second resolution; widely seen as illegal |
| Kosovo Bombing (1999) | NATO | ❌ No | No mandate; justified on humanitarian grounds |
| Syrian Strikes (2017–2018) | U.S., U.K., France | ❌ No | Airstrikes after chemical attacks, bypassed UN |
| Israel Strikes (2012-2015 *2025* ) | Israel | ❌ No | Routine strikes framed as self-defence |
| Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine (2014, 2022) | Russia | ❌ No | Breach of sovereignty condemned by UN |
| Afghanistan (Post-9/11) | U.S. & NATO | ✅ Yes | Self-defence after 9/11 (UNSC Res. 1368) |
| Libya Intervention (2011) | NATO | ✅ Yes (initially) | Approved to protect civilians (UNSC Res. 1973) |
If powerful countries can just bomb other nations without UN approval and call it “defence,” what’s to stop anyone else doing the same?
The U.S. and Israel striking Iran isn’t just about one country being hit it chips away at the idea that borders, sovereignty, and international rules still matter. It opens the door for others to say, “Well, they did it. Why can’t we?”
If it’s fine to bomb Iran without a global approval, what stops China from using that same excuse over Taiwan? Or Russia over Moldova? Or anyone else who decides “security” means doing whatever they want?
Peace isn’t just about not dropping bombs it’s about holding onto the rules that stop the world from falling apart.
There is a difference between preventing a threat and provoking a war. The line may have been crossed here.
While the UN urged the powers to come back to the diplomacy table with other nations like Russia & France agreeing but what do those calls really mean when they clash with a government’s national interests?
Is this the future of international order, or the collapse of it? I’d like to hear your view.
Leave a Reply