Even though many legal scholars and politicians are currently arguing over different interpretations of international law, one point is difficult to dispute: the military attack on Iran is a violation of international law. There is neither a mandate from the United Nations Security Council nor a clearly demonstrable case of immediate self defense. This war therefore joins a long list of military interventions in which power politics have taken precedence over international law.
The consequences of this decision could be far greater than many observers currently assume.
In many Western media outlets the impression is often given that this is a limited military operation aimed at the military infrastructure of the Iranian regime. But wars rarely follow the dynamics their initiators expect. Iran is not a weak state that will collapse after a few weeks of military pressure. The country possesses a wide network of regional allies, asymmetric military capabilities, and the strategic ability to disrupt global trade routes.
Above all, Iran possesses one crucial advantage: time.
Many current analyses underestimate the possibility that this conflict could last for years. The history of modern warfare repeatedly shows that military interventions planned as short operations often develop into long and exhausting conflicts. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are only a few examples. There is little reason to believe that Iran will be an exception.
In addition, military strikes rarely affect only military targets. Reports indicate that alongside military facilities, civilian infrastructure has also been hit, including a school, a water station and a large oil facility. Attacks like these often create consequences that go far beyond the immediate military damage.
Particularly concerning are the damages to oil infrastructure. When large facilities are destroyed, enormous quantities of crude oil and toxic combustion products can be released into the environment. The resulting oil rain can contaminate soil, water sources and the air for years. For people living in the affected regions this does not only represent a short term danger but potentially long lasting health and environmental consequences that may still be felt decades later. Environmental disasters of this scale do not disappear after a few months. They can affect entire regions for twenty years or more.
At the same time the Iranian regime itself is undergoing a significant transformation. After the death of Ali Khamenei, the center of power in Tehran has reportedly appointed his son Mojtaba Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader. This decision is remarkable because it pushes the system of the Islamic Republic further toward what increasingly resembles a dynastic structure of power. The political elite of the country appears more isolated than ever and increasingly focused on preserving its authority rather than implementing reforms.
Yet as authoritarian as the Iranian regime is, one fact must not be forgotten in the current debate: the people of Iran are not identical with their government.
For years many Iranians have lived under economic pressure, international isolation and political repression. Protest movements have repeatedly been suppressed with violence. But the current war is unlikely to improve their situation. Sanctions, military strikes and economic instability primarily affect the civilian population.
This creates a bitter reality: neither Washington nor Tehran are acting primarily in the interests of the Iranian people.
For the leadership in Tehran the preservation of the political system remains the central priority. For the United States and its allies strategic interests in the region take precedence. The people of Iran are caught between these competing power interests and will ultimately carry the greatest burden of this conflict.
This dynamic points to a deeper structural problem in international politics: the failure of the global security order.
The United Nations was created after the Second World War to prevent exactly such conflicts. Yet today the Security Council is largely paralyzed. The five permanent members pursue their own geopolitical interests and repeatedly block collective solutions. The result is an international system in which military force repeatedly prevails over diplomatic mechanisms.
If long term peace is to be possible, this structure must be fundamentally reformed. A system in which a small number of major powers can block any decision is poorly suited to resolving global conflicts.
However, responsibility for growing global instability does not lie with only one actor.
The current course of the United States under President Donald Trump exemplifies a foreign policy that increasingly relies on confrontation rather than diplomacy. In recent years the Trump administration has repeatedly demonstrated that it views international institutions, multilateral agreements and diplomatic processes more as obstacles than as foundations of global stability. Military strength, economic pressure and geopolitical displays of power stand at the center of this strategy.
Europe’s role in this context is particularly problematic. Instead of developing an independent foreign policy, the European Union often follows Washington’s lead in key security issues. Germany as well rarely appears as an independent diplomatic actor in international politics. Rather than taking on a mediating role, the German government frequently supports the strategic decisions of the United States or avoids taking a clear position. As a result, Europe abandons precisely the diplomatic role that would be urgently needed in an increasingly multipolar world.
At the same time other major powers are further intensifying global instability. Russia has for years pursued an aggressive power strategy in which military force is deliberately used to enforce geopolitical interests. This approach undermines international law just as much as other military interventions and contributes to a global order in which strength increasingly overrides rules.
China, meanwhile, observes these developments with strategic patience. While Western states and Russia become entangled in geopolitical confrontations, the Chinese leadership is carefully analyzing these dynamics. Every crisis between other major powers weakens existing structures and opens new opportunities for Beijing to expand its economic, political and technological influence. Conflicts such as the current war with Iran may therefore also accelerate long term global power shifts in China’s favor.
This is precisely why a stronger diplomatic role for Europe would be urgently necessary. Some voices within the European Union show that a different course is possible. Spain in particular has recently placed greater emphasis on diplomacy and international mediation. Yet such approaches remain the exception within a European policy that is still too heavily shaped by the strategic decisions of other powers.
The conflict with Iran is therefore more than a regional war. It is a symptom of an international order that is increasingly incapable of resolving conflicts peacefully.
The greatest tragedy is that those who decide on war are rarely the ones who must live with its consequences.
Political elites in Washington, Tehran, Moscow, Beijing and European capitals will analyze this war from a distance and calculate strategic advantages. The people of Iran, however, will be left to live with destroyed infrastructure, economic hardship and environmental damage.
In the end this war demonstrates one central truth: a world order driven by power politics instead of shared rules will continue to produce new conflicts.
As long as this does not change, the next war will only be a matter of time.