Israel-Iran conflict erodes UN credibility: As the West Asian crisis deepens, the framework of global governance appears increasingly fractured. In the wake of reported Iranian missile strikes on a US military base in Qatar, US President Donald Trump unilaterally declared a ceasefire—a move promptly rejected by Iranian officials and met with silence from Israel, which continues its military operations against Iranian targets. These developments illustrate the accelerating erosion of the rules-based international order—a post-World War II framework intended to restrain unilateral force, institutionalise diplomacy, and uphold international law. Ironically, the same powers that once built and championed this system are now instrumental in its unravelling.
The legality of recent military operations—particularly US and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan—has come under widespread scrutiny. Conducted without UN Security Council authorisation and targeting sites under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection, these strikes have been widely condemned as violations of international law. IAEA reports confirmed that the targeted nuclear facilities were in compliance with inspection protocols and did not pose an imminent threat.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the attacks as a “perilous turn” in global affairs, warning that they challenge not only the credibility of multilateral institutions, but the foundational principle that power must be constrained by law. When legal norms are ignored by major powers, dangerous precedents are set, eroding global trust in international institutions.
READ I Trump’s Iran strike could erode US influence
Israel-Iran conflict and the global order
The order, established in the aftermath of the Second World War, was designed to prevent the recurrence of global conflict and to curb unilateral use of force. Its cornerstone, the 1945 UN Charter, affirms the sovereign equality of states (Article 2.1), prohibits the use of force except in self-defence or with Security Council approval (Article 2.4), and assigns the Security Council a central role in maintaining peace and security (Chapter VII).
Over subsequent decades, institutions such as the Geneva Conventions and the IAEA were established to support this framework. While the RBIO was intended to promote legal equality and cooperative diplomacy, its enforcement has often favoured the powerful. As noted by international affairs scholar Stewart Patrick, US engagement with multilateral institutions has frequently been strategic—aimed at preserving global leadership rather than genuine commitment to universal norms.
From multilateralism to power politics
This tension reached a turning point under the presidency of Donald Trump, whose administration openly disavowed multilateralism. Citing national sovereignty as paramount, the US withdrew from key international frameworks including the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), the Paris Climate Accord, and the UN Human Rights Council. This marked a significant pivot from rule-based cooperation to unilateral power politics, undermining the legal and moral authority of the global system the US once helped to construct.
The recent airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have drawn sharp criticism on both legal and moral grounds. These facilities were subject to IAEA oversight, and no evidence has emerged of an imminent threat to justify the use of force. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state unless in self-defence or authorised by the Security Council.
At an emergency session of the Security Council, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi confirmed that US munitions had damaged safeguarded infrastructure and warned of potential radioactive contamination. The UN Assistant Secretary-General for Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, Miroslav Jenča, reported that the strikes had killed over 400 civilians—constituting a clear violation of international humanitarian law.
Beyond their legal impropriety, these actions further delegitimise international governance. Apart from the US and Israel, Security Council members roundly condemned the strikes, revealing the widening rift between stated international principles and the conduct of powerful states.
Preventive war disguised as defence
Under international law, force may be used only in response to an armed attack (Article 51) or with Security Council authorisation. Neither condition applied to the US-Israeli strikes. No public case was made that Iran posed an immediate threat. Israel did not invoke collective self-defence, and the United States failed to justify its actions under international law. Legal experts, including Brianna Rosen, contend that the strikes fail the tests of necessity and proportionality required for lawful use of force.
Such actions align more closely with the doctrine of preventive war—a concept largely discredited after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That episode, predicated on flawed intelligence, undermined confidence in international law and introduced lasting instability in the region.
Experts now warn that targeting facilities under IAEA inspection undermines the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The treaty relies on a bargain: non-nuclear states accept transparency in return for peaceful cooperation and security assurances. By attacking a signatory in compliance, the strikes jeopardise the incentive structure at the heart of global non-proliferation.
Risks to the non-proliferation regime
These attacks penalise transparency. Iran, which remains a signatory to the NPT, had continued to allow IAEA inspections. The consequence: a devastating military strike. Such conduct risks encouraging states to exit the treaty, pursue clandestine weapons programmes, or develop deterrents outside international oversight.
UN experts warn that this erosion of trust could cascade across the international system, prompting treaty withdrawals and new proliferation risks. The strikes have not only set back negotiations on reviving the JCPOA, but also emboldened Iranian hardliners, escalating tensions and threatening key regional routes like the Strait of Hormuz.
The politics of exception
The airstrikes reflect a broader political trend. Leaders such as Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have repeatedly sidelined international institutions in favour of unilateral action. Trump’s rhetoric of sovereignty and exceptionalism underpinned policies that disengaged from global norms. Netanyahu’s approach—marked by settlement expansion, defiance of UN resolutions, and the blockade of Gaza—has similarly defied multilateral consensus.
The justification for the Iranian strikes was cast in existential terms, echoing the rationale behind Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, later condemned by the UN. This pattern reveals a strategic calculus: if legal norms hinder military objectives, they are discarded.
Scholars have termed this the emergence of an “axis of impunity”—a posture where powerful states selectively observe international law, enforcing it only when it aligns with their interests.
Disillusionment of Global South
The prevailing portrayal of Iran as a rogue actor contrasts sharply with Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, refusal to join the NPT, and history of flouting UN resolutions. Despite its confrontational rhetoric, Iran remains within the NPT framework and continues IAEA cooperation. This double standard deepens disillusionment among states in the Global South, where many have long perceived the international legal order as biased and exclusionary.
The muted response from Western powers and reliance on US vetoes to shield allies from accountability reinforce the perception that international law functions as an instrument of power rather than principle.
Following the strikes, Iran invoked Article 51, asserting its right to self-defence—a response many legal scholars have found proportionate under international law. Yet the larger crisis has revealed a critical breakdown: when compliance with treaties no longer ensures safety, the incentive to remain within the legal system diminishes.
The way ahead
The precedent is dangerous. The erosion of legal norms emboldens defiance and normalises coercion. Global non-proliferation efforts are jeopardised. Civilian lives have been lost, safeguarded infrastructure destroyed, and vital diplomatic efforts undone.
UN experts warn that the attacks may even constitute violations of jus cogens norms—peremptory principles from which no derogation is permitted. With silence from Western capitals and condemnation limited largely to Russia and China, concerns mount over a slide back into “conquest politics.”
The erosion 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 passing 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 erodes, 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: restore multilateralism, uphold legal equality, and pursue meaningful reform, or accept a global setting governed by coercion, impunity, and unilateral dominance.
Dr KM Seethi is Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension (IUCSSRE), Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU), Kerala, India. Seethi also served as Senior Professor of International Relations, Dean of Social Sciences at MGU and ICSSR Senior Fellow.