Subject: Bilateral Relations

Mentor’s Comment

This article analyses the strategic logic behind the escalating Israel-Iran conflict and the deepening U.S. involvement in West Asia. It examines whether the unfolding war marks a structural shift from multipolar contestation to a potential U.S.-Israel dominated unipolar regional order.

Why in the News?

Israel and the United States have launched coordinated strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear and military leadership, triggering direct Iranian retaliation across the Gulf region. Iran has expanded the conflict by striking U.S. bases and threatening closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly one-third of global oil supplies transit. The escalation signals a potential shift from limited confrontation to a broader attempt to restructure the regional balance of power in West Asia.

Has the Conflict Shifted from Tactical Deterrence to Structural Power Reordering?

1. Nature of Earlier Conflict: The June 2025 12-day confrontation remained geographically contained and ended through calibrated escalation and ceasefire diplomacy.
2. Limited Strategic Objectives: Earlier strikes were primarily signalling tools aimed at restoring deterrence rather than dismantling state structures.
3. Expansion of Theatre: The present escalation includes cross-Gulf strikes, targeting of leadership structures, and threats to global energy chokepoints.
4. Leadership Targeting: Direct strikes on senior Iranian officials indicate attempts at systemic destabilisation rather than symbolic retaliation.
5. Shift in Strategic Intent: The transition reflects movement from deterrence management to possible restructuring of regional hierarchy.

Is the Conflict Aimed at Regime Change in Iran?

1. Regime Change Objective: Israeli leadership has consistently viewed Iran as an existential threat due to its missile programme and support for regional militias.
2. Strategic Continuity: Opposition to the 2015 nuclear deal reflected concern that lifting sanctions would strengthen Iran’s conventional and regional influence.
3. Decapitation Strategy: Targeted killings of senior officials indicate attempts to destabilize leadership structures.
4. Historical Precedent: Regime change attempts in Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011) reshaped power balances but produced long-term instability.

Does Iran’s Geopolitical Structure Prevent External Domination?

1. Geographic Depth: Iran’s mountainous terrain and large territorial size complicate ground invasion.
2. Military Capability: Advanced missile and drone networks enable retaliation across the region. For example, Iran has used precision-guided missiles and Shahed-series drones to target U.S. bases in the Gulf and Israeli-linked assets, and previously demonstrated long-range strike capability in attacks on U.S. facilities such as the Al Asad airbase in Iraq (2020).
3. Asymmetric Warfare: Iran relies on proxy networks including Hezbollah and allied militias.
4. Resilience After Initial Strikes: Despite decapitation attempts, Iranian leadership reorganized and expanded retaliation.

Would a Fall of Tehran Create a Unipolar West Asia?

1. Balance of Power Shift: Removal of Iran eliminates the primary revisionist actor challenging U.S.-Israel dominance.
2. Regional Realignment: Arab monarchies dependent on U.S. security architecture may align more firmly.
3. Strategic Vacuum Risk: Collapse of central authority could mirror Iraq and Libya scenarios, creating prolonged instability.
4. Geopolitical Motivation: The conflict reflects strategic interests rather than ideological liberation narratives.

How Does the Conflict Threaten Global Energy Security?

1. Strait of Hormuz: Nearly one-third of global oil trade passes through this chokepoint.
2. Economic Shock Risk: Closure disrupts global energy markets and affects inflation worldwide.
3. Cross-Gulf Escalation: Strikes on bases in Qatar, UAE and Cyprus widen the theatre of war.
4. Global Economic Linkage: Energy price spikes directly affect developing economies including India.

Does Conventional Superiority Guarantee Victory?

1. Military Asymmetry: U.S.-Israel possess superior air and missile defense systems.
2. Attrition Dynamics: Sustained conflict exhausts missile defense shields.
3. Guerrilla Doctrine: Iran’s strategy aims to prolong conflict rather than secure quick victory.
4. Strategic Uncertainty: Decisive victory depends on clearly defined objectives, not merely military power.

Conclusion

The ongoing Israel-U.S.-Iran confrontation reflects more than episodic retaliation; it signals a possible attempt to reshape the strategic architecture of West Asia. However, regime destabilisation does not automatically translate into stable unipolarity, as historical precedents in Iraq and Libya demonstrate. While military superiority may secure tactical gains, sustainable regional order depends on political legitimacy, institutional continuity, and balance-of-power equilibrium. The unfolding crisis therefore represents not merely a regional war, but a critical inflection point in determining whether West Asia moves toward hegemonic consolidation or prolonged instability with global economic repercussions.

Mentor’s Comment

Debates over the resilience of international law reflect deeper tensions within the contemporary global order. While powerful states increasingly test legal limits, the institutional architecture of treaties, courts, and multilateral frameworks continues to regulate global conduct. The issue is not the disappearance of international law, but the contestation of its authority in an era of geopolitical realignment.

Why in the News?

Recent conflicts, including Russia-Ukraine war (2022), Israel’s military actions in Gaza, tensions in West Asia, and renewed U.S.-Iran hostility, have intensified debates over the effectiveness of international law. Repeated breaches of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force have raised concerns about the credibility of the post-1945 rules-based global order.

What is Article 2(4) of the UN Charter?

It prohibits UN Member States from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any manner inconsistent with UN purposes. This cornerstone of international law aims to prevent war, uphold sovereign equality, and promote peaceful dispute resolution. 

Key Aspects of the Prohibition

1. Scope: It prohibits the threat or use of armed force in international relations.
2. Protected Interests: Actions against a state’s territorial integrity (invasion, occupation) or political independence are strictly forbidden.
3. Forms of Force: Prohibited actions include direct military action, invasion, blockade, and indirect use of force through armed groups.
4. Cyber Operations: Cyber attacks that cause physical damage, injury, or death are considered violations of this article.
5. Exceptions: The prohibition is not absolute; lawful exceptions include authorization by the UN Security Council (Chapter VII) and inherent self-defense against an armed attack (Article 51).

Has the Prohibition on Use of Force Under Article 2(4) Lost Its Normative Authority?

1. Article 2(4) of UN Charter: Prohibits threat or use of force in international relations; remains binding on all UN member states.
2. Cold War Context: Despite proxy wars, the U.S. and USSR rarely abandoned legal justification frameworks.
3. Post-1990 Expansion of Self-Defence: U.S. expanded interpretation of anticipatory self-defence (1990s-2000s) in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).
4. Contemporary Violations: Russia-Ukraine conflict (2022) and West Asian conflicts challenge Charter principles.
5. Continuity of Norms: Even powerful states frame actions within legal narratives, indicating normative pull of law.

Does Legalisation of International Relations Constrain Powerful States?

1. Legalisation Process: Institutional frameworks compel states to justify conduct within international law.
2. Domestic Anchoring: International norms resonate through domestic constitutional systems.
3. Agency of Weaker States: Legal frameworks enable smaller states to question powerful states in multilateral forums.
4. Judicialisation: Growth of international courts institutionalises dispute resolution.
5. Example: International Criminal Court prosecutions; African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights regional accountability mechanisms.

Is Contemporary Populist-Authoritarianism a Structural Threat to International Law?

1. Normative Rejection: Populist regimes openly question liberal constitutional order.
2. U.S. Withdrawal Trends: Exit from international agreements during the Trump presidency (e.g., Paris Agreement, WHO).
3. Geopolitical Assertion: Russia and others reject Western-led normative frameworks.
4. Shift from Justification to Defiance: Reduction in effort to legally justify actions.
5. Risk: Weakening compliance culture in multilateral institutions.

Beyond the UN Charter, How Extensive is International Law’s Regulatory Reach?

1. Trade Governance: Free Trade Agreements; India-EU negotiations ongoing.
2. Maritime Governance: High Seas Treaty (2023) strengthens marine biodiversity protection.
3. Global Health: Pandemic Agreement negotiations aim to enhance preparedness.
4. Climate Governance: Paris Agreement institutionalises nationally determined contributions (NDCs).
5. Arms Control: Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions regulate prohibited weapons.
6. Outer Space Law: Governs peaceful use and liability norms.

Do International Courts Demonstrate Institutional Resilience?

1. International Criminal Court (ICC): Prosecutes genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity.
2. Regional Courts: African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights strengthens regional human rights enforcement.
3. Dispute Settlement: WTO dispute mechanism institutionalises trade compliance (though Appellate Body crisis persists).
4. Peaceful Resolution: Courts reduce reliance on armed conflict.
5. Continuity: Judicial processes operate independent of media attention.

Does International Law Operate Quietly Despite Political Breaches?

1. Silent Functioning: Enables cross-border trade, aviation, communication networks.
2. Everyday Governance: Facilitates migration, shipping, investment flows.
3. Systemic Integration: Supports global supply chains.
4. Structural Embeddedness: Law operates beyond headline conflicts.
5. Institutional Persistence: Law-making processes continue despite geopolitical tensions.

Conclusion

International law faces visible strains due to geopolitical rivalries and selective compliance. However, its treaties, courts, and institutional frameworks continue to regulate trade, climate action, maritime governance, and human rights. The current phase reflects contestation and power politics, not the collapse of the rules-based international order.